Champion Briefs March/April 2017 Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
Copyright 2017 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
The Evidence Standard March/April 2017
The Evidence Standard
Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.
We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees, managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:
1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,
even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the
community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception.
4. We will never support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use
inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of
information distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.
6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence
from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the
goals and vision of this activity.
These seven statements, while seemingly simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.
Champion Briefs 4 Letter from the Editor March/April 2017
Letter from the Editor
My favorite topics are those that concern a general moral issue that has real-life applications. This year’s March/April topic fits that mold exactly. Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing. Since the wording describes a broad action with no specific implementation strategy, debaters can make their own interpretation to make a wide range of arguments. The educational value of this opportunity is clear: you have a chance to draw lines within shades of gray.
You should conceptualize this debate with no assumptions, allowing you to build a unique worldview for your advocacy. Dissecting what a “right” is will prompt you to make choices based both on the conceptual entitlements of humans and the implications for upholding those in the real world. This approach will help you construct powerful cases but also allows you to engage with a timely conversation about human rights beyond housing. No argument on this topic happens in a bubble; the question of our government’s role in guaranteeing aspects of our lives is applicable to a variety of issues.
In this brief, you’ll find many of core arguments to this conversation. On the affirmative, we focused on analyzing housing rights as an abstract principle and it’s application to specific groups. Cards for the negative analyze differing philosophical approaches to the issue and the consequences with various implementation strategies. Debaters often see the framework debate as separate from substance, creating isolated arguments that are only sufficient from a philosophical OR policy approach. I hope that you discover, through this brief and your own research, that the theoretical and practical aspects of the topic are too intertwined to separate.
I wish you all the best of luck on this topic!
Sincerely, Mitali Mathur Editor-in-Chief
Champion Briefs 5 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Table of Contents
The Evidence Standard ...... 4
Letter from the Editor ...... 5
Table of Contents ...... 6
Topic Analyses ...... 24 Topic Analysis by Bennett Eckert ...... 25
Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur ...... 37
Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum ...... 45
Alternative Argumentation by Bailey Rung ...... 59
Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson ...... 71
Evidence for the Affirmative ...... 77 Critical: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC ...... 78
Current constitutional remedies for homelessness are inadequate for addressing the criminalization of the existence of homeless individuals...... 79
Politicians and candidates need to start standing up for housing problems. The problem also requires grass roots pressures...... 80
Gentrification and racial segregation are significant causal factors for dismantling housing rights...... 81
Champion Briefs 6 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Public housing demolition is a targeted racial strategy, capitalizing on low-income neighborhoods to turn into spaces ready for gentrification...... 82
A2 Gentrification Good: Their consumer choice model of gentrification is flawed because it fails to explain the factors behind preference...... 83
A2 Displacement is overblown: Empirical data confirms that displacement primarily targets low-income and marginalized communities, Freeman's study is flawed...... 84
Gentrification has spillover effects for displacement- it is not a simple 1:1 relationship between gentrifiers and gentrifiable communities...... 86
A right to housing is a political demand that acts against the tides of gentrification and mass displacement of marginalized communities...... 87
LGBT discrimination in housing is still legal...... 89
LGBT homelessness is spurred by discrimination in housing...... 90
Landords either deny same-sex couples housing or increase rents as a means to exclude them from accessing housing...... 91
The Blues is a tradition that breaks down neoplantation politics and offers a radical consciousness to marginalized black bodies...... 92
Abstraction is the mode of the normalization of white supremacy- embrace an alternative epistemological position...... 94
The rights based approach articulates a two-pronged shift that deconstructs women's subordinate status in relation to housing...... 95
Understanding housing as a social and political right uniquely challenges neoliberalism...... 96
A2 General Principle T - The right to housing is legally interpreted to be a key right defined in context of the needs of disadvantaged citizens...... 97
Exclusionary housing policies that discriminate against felons creates a significant barrier for re-entry...... 98
Champion Briefs 7 Table of Contents March/April 2017
The U.S. must enforce a right to housing for those with criminal records by removing arbitrary exclusionary rules that prevent access...... 100
The US should adopt more stringent anti-discrimination standards in order to protect homeless LGBT youth...... 101
Economic Benefits AC ...... 102
Cheaper to house homeless than to allow them to remain homeless...... 103
You could house everyone with a $600,000 home for the cost it takes to make a fighter jet...... 104
It is cheaper to house the homeless than to allow them to be homeless- study out of NC finds...... 105
New Mexico study finds it significantly cheaper to house the homeless...... 106
Its cheaper to house the homeless because they end up using less social services like the criminal justice system...... 107
Dependence on emergency services drops after providing housing...... 108
Healthcare is a significant cost associated with homelessness, housing solves this...... 109
Homelessness Advantages AC ...... 111
Home can fit multiple interpretations including lodging where the private person can develop-I law shows...... 112
Nation is making progress on housing, current policies show that government housing is possible...... 113
Most homeless are not chronically homeless they are just victims of circumstance...... 114
Many Americans live on the edge of homelessness. Neither political party is treating this effectively...... 115
Housing is correlated with personal health...... 116
Champion Briefs 8 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Homelessness is a risk for youth to be prostituted and sold. Particularly marginalized youth are at risk...... 117
POC are disproportionately represented in homelessness...... 118
Minorities have higher rates of homelessness...... 119
Veterans account for a large portion of homeless people...... 120
Queer people are at a higher risk for homelessness...... 121
Homeless families are at risk of having their children removed. Homelessness affects those that need help the most...... 122
Housing the mentally ill is key to helping them...... 123
Domestic Violence and homelessness are correlated...... 124
Homelessness is not receiving attention it need, this only exacerbates the problem...... 125
We need to address the root cause of housing, affordable housing controls the link to homelessness...... 126
Housing the homeless empirically works- solves the root issues...... 127
Santa Clara Country shows that housing the homeless works and is cheap...... 128
Utah has drastically reduced their homeless population through free housing. . 129
Homeless often commit crimes to get off the streets...... 130
Decreasing homelessness has a laundry list of positive effect...... 131
Communities have the ability to band together to reduce homelessness for cheap...... 132
Harm reduction theory can be used when discussing the harms of drug use in terms of homelessness...... 133
Harms reduction principle shows how successful drug reduction and housing can work together...... 134
Harms reduction principle is the best for a housing first approach...... 135
Champion Briefs 9 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Housing is a Human Right AC ...... 136
UN Law guarantees a right to housing, more than half the world doesn’t meet the basic standard of housing...... 137
Housing is an integral part of multiple rights outlined by international law...... 138
Though states vary on their implementation of housing rights there is still a core obligation to housing...... 139
Article 25 of the UDHR guarantees a right to housing...... 140
ECHRF implies a right to housing per article 8...... 141
The right to housing is rooted in personal dignity and development...... 142
Housing the homeless is super cost effective, Utah proves...... 143
Netherlands guaranteed a right to housing in 1901 and it has been a huge success...... 144
Government funds pay for housing through income difference supplements by tax dollars...... 145
Homeless youth are at risk of being victimized...... 146
Right to housing exists because housing is the primary need for a fulfilled life. . 147
Efforts of housing need to be centered on the right to housing...... 148
Homeless people often turn to selling themselves to get off the street...... 149
Homeless people commit crimes to avoid staying on the streets...... 150
A2 Universal Basic Income: UBI can't solve the housing problem, Europe shows...... 151
A2 Advantage CPs: Only a right to housing solves...... 153
The neg calls for a reformulation of demands outside the capitalist system that seeks to democratize control of urbanization processes through the right to the city...... 154
Urbanization stabilizes global markets, perpetuating the system of capitalism. 157
Champion Briefs 10 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Current federal rules are insufficient for true equality between heterosexual and same-sex couples...... 158
A2 Libertarian NC: Homeless people are not free to do wrong: This is a question- begging approach to establishing property rights...... 159
Consumer choice is important consideration in housing first practices...... 160
Blues is the third reconstruction- a means to reclaim holy sites of blackness, the struggle in New Orleans is a struggle for freedom...... 161
Rights discourse specifically in the case of women's access to housing aids the fight against subordination...... 163
Reject the international law definition and current political interpretation because it is infected by a patriarchal worldview...... 165
Even the weaker exclusionary policies have time-based restrictions that prevent access to housing of those with criminal records...... 166
Empirical evidence proves that a statutory right to housing reduces marginalization...... 167
Even if the human right to housing doesn't seem immediately feasible, we ought to embrace it because of its necessity for evolving standards of justice...... 168
People ought to have a right to decent, affordable housing. This is essential to reduce the risks of disease and overcrowding, as well as address racial discrimination...... 169
People ought to have a right to decent, affordable housing. This is essential to reduce the risks of disease and overcrowding, as well as address racial discrimination...... 170
The human and financial costs of inadequate housing are borne by everyone in society...... 171
The right to housing is a prerequisite to political rights and participation in a democratic society...... 172
Champion Briefs 11 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Housing ought to be a right because it is central to one's life, determining access to all other opportunities in life...... 173
Rights are not an either-or proposition. The right to housing is essential to the realization of other rights, like the right to decent, affordable food and healthcare...... 174
The United States has a long history of treating housing, in some respects, as a right...... 175
Affordaibility is a key element of the right to housing...... 176
We must question the for-profit system of housing which dominates how housing is provided in the United States. The negative may decry government interference, ignoring how virtually all housing in the US benefits from some kind of government subsidy...... 177
The onus is on the negative to prove why we should let present levels of inequality and deprivation continue. They must provide an alternative to the problems of homelessness...... 178
The right to housing would require efforts to remove discriminatory barriers to housing, as well as ensuring that housing is adequate, affordable, decent, and secure...... 179
The right to housing is a requisite for other rights...... 180
The human right to housing is codified under international law...... 181
Other countries have succeeded at substantially reducing homelessness, and that's because they recognize the right to housing...... 182
Harms: Targeting homelessness is a prerequisite to solving health problems. ... 183
Harms: Homelessness is an intersectional problem in the United States...... 184
Topicality/Framing Card: HUD Definition of Homeless...... 185
Framing Card: Conditions on housing are immoral under Kantian ethical principles...... 186
Champion Briefs 12 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Topicality Card: Home and house have distinct meanings...... 187
Impact: Domicide is a unique form of trauma...... 188
Inherency: Homes are destroyed as a result of routine and extreme violence. .... 189
Impact: Domicide causes irreversible mental and physical health problems and is part of a larger cycle of political exploitation...... 190
Impact: Destruction of housing catalyzes civic action against institutional power structures...... 192
Solvency: International Human Rights Law is insufficient to protect individuals from domicide. Housing must be the focal point of action...... 193
Framing Card: Debates should focus on morality instead of economic maximization...... 194
Framing Card: Economic indicators obfuscate the ethical imperative to prevent homelessness...... 195
Gentrification creates homelessness...... 196
Gentrification is part of a complex process of neoliberalism...... 197
Framing housing as a “goal” rather than a right exacerbates gentrification...... 198
Regardless of U.S policymaking we should recognize a right to housing...... 199
Gentrification is exacerbated by a lack of access to legal services in the U.S...... 200
Internal Link: The federal government is directly responsible for decreases in available affordable housing...... 201
Solvency: USFG action can solve with large scale policy reform...... 202
Turn: Appeals to morality in the context of Western assistance perpetuates victim/perpetrator trope which entrenches neo-colonialism, makes the impacts of the 1AC inevitable...... 203
Turn: Housing support policies are a tool for bio political control...... 204
Champion Briefs 13 Table of Contents March/April 2017
No Solvency: The success of “right to housing” solutions depends on stake holder buy in...... 205
Turn: Free market solutions are better than government programs...... 207
The right to housing is necessary to ensure human flourishing since the right to be grounds all human capabilities...... 208
A2 Topicality: The right to housing is a moral right, the aff must defend the right to housing as a normative concept absent policy-making concerns...... 212
Since independence is relational, absent access to basic needs, we become dependent on others which violates an agent’s independence...... 214
This establishes the duty of the state to provide basic needs...... 215
International law affirms- multiple multilateral treaties confirm...... 216
Regional international agreements also affirm...... 218
Even if international law is non-binding, the international consensus is largely shifting towards a guarantee of housing, creating binding international customs...... 219
The right to housing is key to rectify the relationship of dominance that currently exists between welfare administrators and recipients...... 221
A rights model of housing is key to undermining the relationship of dependence many homeless exist in, affirming their status as valuable citizens...... 222
A2 Kant AC: Obligations reliant on distributive justice violate the independence of benefactors by forcing them to become means to the ends of people in need...... 223
A2 Kant AC: The maxim of using one as a means to another’s end is not universalizable because it limits the freedom of the one to benefit the other- simultaneously willing for and against independence...... 224
A2 Kant AC: Establishing a right to welfare is incoherent since it confuses the distinction between imperfect and perfect duties...... 225
A2 Kant AC: Rights cannot ground welfare provision...... 226
Champion Briefs 14 Table of Contents March/April 2017
A2 Libertarian NC: Status quo treatment of the homeless is a violation of negative freedom...... 227
Federal Housing Vouchers Plan ...... 229
Conservative state like Utah are embracing housing the homeless...... 230
Rise in urban renewal is harming the housing progress the US has already made...... 231
Grassroots pressure is needed to solve homelessness in conjunction with political action...... 232
Housing Vouchers do not lead to an increase in crime but rather a potential decrease...... 233
Housing Vouchers do not lead to an increase in crime but rather a potential decrease...... 234
Housing Vouchers are key to breaking down racial subordination...... 235
Justice demands that antighettoization is the preferred housing framework in the US...... 236
Choice based housing frameworks endorse racist enclaves...... 237
Solvency Advocate- Reform Section 8 to include new opportunity housing vouchers...... 238
Increasing Housing vouchers are key to community integration...... 239
A2 Public Housing Deconcentrates Poverty: Public housing intensifies the concentration of poverty...... 240
A2 Housing Vouchers Improve test scores: Housing vouchers fail to improve students test scores...... 241
Turn: Federal involvement in housing extends the neoliberal praxis and reproduces gendered biases...... 242
Champion Briefs 15 Table of Contents March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers Fight Gender inequality: US housing policies need to be fundamentally reconsidered or they will continue to reinforce gendered and heteronormative practices...... 243
A2 Vouchers help non-tradtional families: Housing vouchers reinforce the nuclear family trope and adversely harm non-traditional families...... 244
Social housing services are down in the US...... 245
Housing Vouchers are key to allowing those who are extremely impoverished to purchase houses in less poor areas...... 246
Housing vouchers reduce obesity of recipients by 40-50 percent...... 247
Vouchers improve societal well being and improve youth outcomes...... 248
Housing Vouchers Reduce the likely hood that recipients will be in high crime neighborhoods...... 249
Housing Vouchers assist in promoting economically mixed neighborhoods, and reduced recipients likelihood of residing in extremely impoverished neighborhoods...... 250
Housing voucher programs reduce psychological distress and depression for women by 3.5 percent...... 252
Housing vouchers improve labor supply...... 253
Housing vouchers lead to consumers of them to be offered worse schooling...... 254
A2 Vouchers improve employment: Receiving vouchers decrease quarterly employment by 3.6 percent...... 255
A2 Vouchers increase earnings: Housing vouchers reduce average annual earning of recipients by 1,316 dollars...... 256
Critical Turn: Government funded housing programs reinforce neoliberal ideas of gentrification and corporate redevelopment control...... 257
Champion Briefs 16 Table of Contents March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers help people leave bad neighborhoods: Housing Voucher recipients are often forced to revert back to their old neighborhoods due to insufficient childcare facilities nearby these areas...... 258
A2 Vouchers Reduce crime: Housing vouchers forces recipients into more drug ridden neighborhoods increasing their likelihood to consume them...... 259
A2 Vouchers reduce crime: Due to landlords refusal to rent to many users recipients of housing vouchers are often unable to find neighborhoods with low crime rates...... 261
A2 Housing Vouchers Help the economy: Housing Justice increases overall rents – That increases the wealth disparity gap making affordable housing impossible...... 262
A2 Helps Economy Affordable housing is an un necessarily vague term: Policies require specific economic information to be sucessful...... 263
A2 Housing Vouchers Improve Saftey: Current housing projects are too old to provide effective housing – compromises safety...... 264
A2 Reduces rent burdens: Affordable housing does not reduce rent burdens – Most impoverished still pay over 50% of income on rent...... 265
Evidence for the Negative ...... 266 Universal Basic Income CP ...... 267
UBI offers the ability to reduce types of welfare and allow everyone a base line of funding...... 268
Universal income could benefit a variety of things including homelessness...... 269
Economic Impacts DA ...... 270
A2 Econ DA: The cost of housing the 600K homeless people could be covered under the amount that Wall Street Executives get in bonuses every year...... 271
Champion Briefs 17 Table of Contents March/April 2017
A2 Econ DA: Caring for the homeless costs about 35,000 without housing them.272
Housing cost isn’t the only problem it has to be a good location because location controls the link to transportation cost...... 273
After transportation and location costs are considered housing is likely not as reasonably priced...... 274
Transportation cost needs to be considered in tandem with housing cost...... 275
Housing homeless trades off about $16,000...... 276
A2 Spending DA: It is all about budget allocation. There is room for an assurance for affordable housing...... 277
Obama promised to house all homeless veterans, the program proved to be too expensive and they weren't able to achieve it...... 278
A2 Econ Impacts: Our struggle with budget deficits is all the more reason to ensure a right to housing...... 279
Politics DA ...... 280
Uniqueness: Carson’s nomination to the Department of Housing and Urban Development is the lesser of two evils – He’s holding back calls to large budget cuts...... 281
Uniqueness: Carson’s nomination to the Department of Housing and Urban Development is the lesser of two evils – He’s holding back calls to large budget cuts...... 282
Link: Housing reform is contentious – There is simply too much at stake not to start fights, and force Trump to intervene...... 283
Internal Link: Forcing Trump to exercise political muscle is unwise – It results in even more conservative policies than before...... 284
Impact: HUD budget cuts massively increase homelessness, racial discrimination, and ability to resolve current homelessness – That turns case...... 285
Champion Briefs 18 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Uniqueness: Trump faces Congressional opposition on mass deportation and the wall – he won’t accomplish the full agenda without cooperation...... 286
Link: Housing reforms empirically create conservative backlash – It gives trump the constituent pressure to congress he needs...... 287
Internal Link: Completion of Trump deportation pledge literally ushers repression and violence along with economic collapse...... 288
Impact: Repression and economic collapse ushers in an incoherence that ensures global nuclear conflict – escalation is likely...... 291
Extra Uniqueness: Carson is defending HUD from large structural changes – Ensures minimal damage to the agency...... 293
Extra Extensions: Housing is contentious and political backlash with a Trump presidency is assured...... 294
Extension: Democrats defend Carson as the lesser of the Evils – He is committed to dealing minimal damage to HUD...... 295
Extension: Trump has Democrats stuck between Gov shutdown or a Wall – Trump will undoubtedly win that fight...... 296
AFF Extension A2 XO CP: Trump needs congressional approval to fund the wall even after his executive order...... 297
DA Extension: Trump can’t use the Secure Fence Act to fund the wall...... 299
A2 Impact: Turn: HUD creates geographical racial divisions, preventing equal access to schooling, homes, and entrenching poverty...... 300
A2 Uniqueness: Trump is using executive orders on all campaign promises and shows no sign of stopping...... 301
A2 Uniqueness: Trump is using executive orders in an unprecetended legal manner – He doesn’t need congress to fulfill campaign promises...... 302
A2 Trump Poly Cap: Trump’s claims of voter fraud has drained his political – No way to get GOP in line...... 303
Champion Briefs 19 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Non-unique: All indications point toward Trump imposing a Muslim registry now...... 304
Non Unique: The Trump Ban on Muslims is already in effect...... 305
Non-Unique:GOP unity is high now – plan can’t derail it...... 306
A2 Political Capital: Presidential political power is virtually irrelevant – Trump does not determine congressional actions...... 307
A2 Wall: Wall Funding can be through an XO – Makes it inevitable...... 308
Uniqueness Overwhelms: Paul Ryan will fight deportation and wall – Trump can’t get congress in line...... 309
A2 Solvency: Housing that is affordable exists even within expensive markets – even if there are tradeoffs, we’ve done the most we can to reduce homelessness...... 310
Tradeoffs DA ...... 311
Uniqueness: Social security is effectively keeping 21 million Americans out of poverty...... 312
Link: Any increase in spending necessitates a tradeoff in other programs...... 313
Internal Link: Republicans will demand that cuts come from major welfare programs and social services...... 314
Impact: Cuts in other social programs directly harm poverty rates turns case. ... 315
A2 Cut-Go procedures: Cut-go rules are often ignored or not followed...... 316
Affordable housing does not reduce poverty: Best evidence proves it creates equal financial trade offs...... 317
Affordable housing projects trade off with food production – It reduces food security...... 318
Equal housing initiatives lower community social capital – It derails movements critical for long term change...... 319
Champion Briefs 20 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Best evidence proves Affordable housing isn’t actually affordable – tradesoff with location and transportation...... 320
More subsidized housing tradeoffs with affordability, hurting the poorest few – You can either have more houses, or more affordability...... 321
True affordable housing is impossible – Rents are not enough to continue running houses even when subsidized...... 322
Subsidy amounts are simply not enough to alleviate homelessness – There is not enough money...... 323
Non-unique: Trump is already massively cutting food stamp programs – makes impact inevitable...... 324
Trump won’t make cuts – Although running as a conservative, his execution is moderate...... 325
Trump is cutting back government spending and taxation – Makes underfunding of welfare inevitable...... 326
Racism NC ...... 327
Government housing faces multiple challenges such as cost and equity protections...... 329
The lack of housing is a hidden problem linked to the segregation of communities based on race and class...... 330
Federal housing policies like section 8 create ghettos...... 331
De Facto segregation occurs do to government policy surrounding housing...... 332
Sanitizing the language of ghettos ignores their historical roots...... 333
Government policy is a means of keeping the ghetto as 'lesser'. Rent is unequal causing lack of equity...... 334
Government housing policy is fraught with racism. Policies like redlining assure unequal access to housing...... 335
Historically accessible housing is used to manipulate housing markets by driving fear of an out group moving into an area...... 336
Champion Briefs 21 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Right to the City approach is net beneficial, three reasons...... 337
The root cause of the aff's impacts is the capitalist urbanization process...... 338
Capitalist led urban development destroys any attempt of the coalitional politics of the aff...... 340
Consistently, urban developments are just used to absorb capitalist surplus value radically transforming lifestyles, ensuring global capitalism's stability...... 341
Right to City is competitive with Right to Housing...... 343
We must begin with a wholesale rejection of capitalism- the limits and contradictions of cap have been exposed in the housing market. A call for the right to the city displaces the profit motive for capitalism...... 344
More competition: Right to city is an anti-state and capital approach that shifts control to actual urban inhabitants- it is ground up opposed to top down approach of the aff...... 347
Right to the city shifts the question of enfranchisement from national citizenship to urban dwellers breaking away from liberal models of citizenship...... 348
Right to the city shifts the question of enfranchisement from national citizenship to urban dwellers breaking away from liberal models of citizenship...... 350
A2 Right to city is liberatory - TURN: Right to the city creates complex overlapping that may empower already powerful groups to dictate the choices of others...... 352
A2 Right to City is liberatory- TURN: The issue of sub-scale decisions can further disenfranchise marginalized groups...... 353
Right to the city best forms networks of equivalence, which is key in uniting diverse social movements against injustice- the CP solves the aff better...... 354
Networks of equivalence are uniquely key- counterhegemonic practices built off of this method of resistance create strong forces against the status quo...... 356
Gentrification is related to the governments efforts to create housing policy reform...... 359
Displacement is a result of state based gentrification, certain neighborhoods get cost driven up upon housing reform drives people to gentrified spaces...... 360
Champion Briefs 22 Table of Contents March/April 2017
Rent control is the most influential form public intervention...... 361
Mixed-income housing is an extension of neoliberal urban development that relies on displacement of low-income and marginalized communities...... 362
The logic underpinning mixed-income housing solutions is disciplinary, pathologizing blackness which reinforces racists structures and institutions. ... 363
Mixed-income housing developments decrease access to housing and decreased education quality...... 366
The focus on the house enforces neoliberal conceptions that bases worth on home ownership...... 369
Capitalistic analysis of housing struggles shows deep the intersection with race...... 370
Housing bubble burst was the epitome of class based stratification...... 371
Investigating the relationship of the "right to housing" to the present juridical order is a prior question...... 372
Rights can do harm, as well as good. Critical interrogation of rights discourse is essential to a democratic politics...... 373
A2 Biopolitics: The affirmative is not a form of naive legalism-demanding a right to housing is essential to policy change...... 374
The right to housing contributes to the "juridification of welfare", a legalistic approach that redistributes power away from rights holders and toward elites...... 375
A2 Biopolitics: The right to housing creates a counter-hierarchy of power...... 376
A2 Biopootics: The right to housing is essential to a politics of recognition which overcomes the stigmatization of the homeless...... 377
A2 Biopolitics: Human rights discourse is necessary, despite its limitations. Simply deconstructing it, without proposing an alternative, is counter-productive...... 378
A2 All Ks: Permutation, do both. Creating coalitions between supporters of the right to housing and racial/economic justice movements is essential to fundamental, systemic change...... 379
Champion Briefs 23 Champion Briefs March/April 2017 Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Topic Analyses Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Topic Analysis by Bennett Eckert
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
Introduction
The right to housing doesn’t show up in the media too much, but it is nonetheless an incredibly important issue. There’s a substantial amount of homelessness throughout the United
States, and many argue that the right to housing would be a good starting place to address this problem. In this topic analysis, I’ll start by discussing the meaning of a few key terms in the topic. Next, I will discuss two core affirmative arguments that could, if written correctly, be very strategic. Finally, I will discuss two negative generics that should link to almost every affirmative, regardless of the aff’s level of specificity.
What does the topic mean?
Pretty much every important phrase in this topic is open to interpretation. In this section,
I’ll discuss potential interpretations of “United States”, “guarantee”, and, finally, “the right to housing”. United States
The phrase “United States” may actually be the vaguest one in the resolution: as the
Family Guardian Fellowship notes, “there is no ONE statutory United States,” which is
“incontestable from the dozens and dozens of definitions of the United States in the statutes and codes.”1 Throughout numerous different documents, the “United States” has meant the fifty states, the United States federal government, and even a corporation.2 In recent years, this
1 “An Investigation Into the Meaning of the Term ‘United States’,” Family Guardian Fellowship, 8 Aug. 2016. 2 “An Investigation Into the Meaning of the Term ‘United States’,” Family Guardian Fellowship, 8 Aug. 2016.
Champion Briefs 25 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
ambiguity has been the source of an abundance of “plan flaw” and topicality arguments regarding the definition of “United States”. Of course, the most interesting of these debates will be whether the right to housing should be implemented on a federal or state basis.
One key aspect of this issue is whether the affirmative should be required to specify which interpretation of the United States they are going to defend (should the affirmative have to say whether the right to housing is done by the states or federally?). In my view, there’s no doubt that the affirmative must specify whether they defend the states or the federal government (or some other interpretation of “United States”). I am not sure, however, that this has to happen during the affirmative case. If the affirmative refuses to specify even in cross-examination, then this is certainly theoretically illegitimate because it prevents the negative from making arguments based on the affirmative’s actor. These could include solvency deficits, politics or federalism disadvantages, and counterplans that do the affirmative through a different agent, which are an important part of negative ground.
Thus, the affirmative must be prepared to defend one side of this debate (the states or the federal government). They should be ready, then, to defend both that their interpretation of
“United States” is the correct one—that we should interpret “United States” to mean what the affirmative says it does—and that their actor is optimal. Thus, all debaters should be ready to go on both sides of the states/federal government counterplans and the federalism disadvantage so that they have an option against every affirmative (and are able to defend whichever one they choose on the affirmative).
Champion Briefs 26 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Guarantee
Another controversial word in the topic will be “guarantee”. In this section, I’ll discuss a few (of many) possible definitions of the word and briefly defend the one that I think would make for the best debates.
First, guarantee could mean “to secure, as by giving or taking security.”3 With this definition, the affirmative would be forced to defend that the right to housing is literally secured in their world: that is, the aff would defend a world in which on one lacks a house (or whatever is guaranteed by the right to housing, which is the topic of the next section). This interpretation seems obviously wrong: it would exclude all plan/implementation-based affs because there would always be some small chance that the affirmative would not result in all people having a home.
Another potential interpretation is that guarantee means “to promise”.4 This interpretation seems just as bad as the other one: all the affirmative would have to defend is that the United
States says they’ll provide a right to housing. No enforcement would be mandated, so the debate wouldn’t be about the core issues in the literature or how effective the right to housing would be, but rather just whether claiming to implement the right to housing would be good.
The best interpretation, I think, defines guarantee as “to make oneself answerable for
(something) on behalf of someone else who is primarily responsible.”5 Under this interpretation, guaranteeing the right to housing would mean that the United States becomes accountable for ensuring that everyone has a house. Thus, it avoids the problem of the first interpretation because
3 “guarantee,” Dictionary.com, accessed 6 Feb 2017. 4 “guarantee,” Dictionary.com, accessed 6 Feb 2017. 5 “guarantee,” Dictionary.com, accessed 6 Feb 2017.
Champion Briefs 27 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
there’s no requirement that people actually do get houses (making every affirmative utopian), but it also mandates enforcement because the United States could face recourse for failing to provide the right, which avoids the problem of the second interpretation. For the sake of space, I’ll stop here, but this should provide at least some preliminary thoughts on how to best interpret
“guarantee”. Right to Housing
There are far too many definitions in the literature of “right to housing” for me to confidently weigh in on the best one, but I will still go over some main potential definitions in this section.
The OHCHR says that the right to housing is “the right of every woman, man, youth and child to gain and sustain a safe and secure home and community in which to live in peace and dignity.”6 While it’s a nice starting point, this definition is still pretty vague and unhelpful. A more extensive definition comes from Hartman, who says that a right to housing must include
“affordability, physical quality of the unit, and the social and physical characteristics of the neighborhood environment.”7 I won’t go into detail here about what he means by each of these things, but this is a rather broad definition that is certainly worth looking into more. A good place to start would be to read the full article “The Case for a Right to Housing”, which is a solid starting place in the literature.
On the other hand, respecting the right to housing could be more narrowly defined as implying that “governments must refrain from any measure that would impede the exercise of
6 “The Right to Adequate Housing Toolkit,” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, accessed 6 Feb 2017. 7 Chester Hartman, “The Case for a Right to Housing,” Housing Policy Debate 9, issue 2 (1998): 237.
Champion Briefs 28 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
this right,”8 making respect for the right to housing purely negative.9 At first glance, this interpretation seems a little under-demanding on the affirmative: it seems that a broader, positive right to housing is what is meant by the resolution. I won’t say much more on that here, though, since it’s best not to try to resolve this complex debate in a few paragraphs.
Of course, there are a myriad of other considerations that come along with “right to housing”, such as whether it’s a human right or a legal right (or both) and whether the right to housing can be defined by international law. However, regardless of what interpretation of the right to housing the affirmative chooses to defend, they should be ready to defend it from both a topicality angle and a more substantive angle (potentially against negative arguments that claim a different right to housing ought to be guaranteed, or just arguments that the specific right to housing the affirmative defends is bad even if other ones could be desirable).
Affirmative
In this section, I’ll discuss three of the core potential affirmative positions on this topic.
Homelessness
The first, and likely most obvious, affirmative is a whole resolution affirmative with an advantage about homelessness. Large swaths of the literature are (unsurprisingly) based around the issue of homelessness. This position could take a few different forms.
First, in its most basic form, it could argue that the right to housing directly decreases homelessness by requiring that people are provided with homes. Initially, this argument seems
8 Christophe Golay and Melik Özden, “The Right to Housing,” Human Rights Programme of the Europe-Third World Centre (CETIM), 2007. 9 Golay and Ozden argue that protecting and respecting the right to housing are distinct. Protecting it, they claim, means governments must “prohibit third parties from preventing the enjoyment of the right to housing in any way.”
Champion Briefs 29 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
appealing: how could people go without homes even with an established right to housing?
However, there are some serious challenges with the right to housing. For instance, Loison-
Leruste and Quilgars conclude that:
[A] right to housing does have the potential to ensure that the accommodation needs of the most marginalised households receive greater priority than those without such a right. However, implementation challenges, including take-up issues, fragmented governance arrangements, competing social goals, such as social diversity, and an overall lack of housing may significantly restrict the impact of this right to housing.10
Thus, there’s no guarantee that the right to housing has a direct, immediate impact on homelessness.
This position is still viable, though. For one, Loison-Leruste and Quilgars (along with other authors) do discuss that there are some reductions in homeless even if they are not substantial. A more viable way to defend this position, though, likely would argue that the right to housing is a catalyst for other reforms that attempt to address homelessness. Byrne and
Culhane make this point:
Nonetheless, like the English experience, there is reason to believe that the primary benefit of the right to housing in France has occurred on a larger policy level, where the problems of homelessness and instability have garnered increased attention. The success of a legally enforceable right may be best measured not in terms of the number of persons that obtain housing as a result of its existence, but in terms of its ability to redirect the overall policy orientation of a country towards more effective solutions to homelessness.11
This position goes well with a wide variety of different frameworks. Some would include the structural violence framework that has become popular in recent years and a generic utilitarian framework.
10 Marie Loison-Leruste and Deborah Quilgars, “Increasing Access to Housing: Implementing the Right to Housing in England and France”, European Journal of Homelessness 3, (December 2009): 75. 11 Thomas Byrne and Dennis P. Culhane, “Right to Housing: An Effective Means for Addressing Homelessness?,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 14, no. 3 (2011): 386.
Champion Briefs 30 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Intimate Partner Violence
A plan-based affirmative with a lot of potential would be one that guarantees a right to housing for survivors of intimate partner violence. The NHLP, for instance, highlights currently existing state and local protections that:
(1) prohibit housing discrimination based on an applicant or tenant’s status as a survivor of domestic violence; (2) provide an eviction defense where the landlord tries to evict the victim because the abuser committed a crime or lease violation at the rental unit; (3) bar landlords from limiting a tenant’s right to call for police or emergency assistance; (4) require landlords to change locks where tenants have provided documentation of domestic violence; and (5) permit early lease termination without further obligation to pay the rent where tenants provide landlords with documentation of domestic violence.12
All of these protections very closely parallel the broad definition of the right to housing that I discussed above. Thus, there is certainly a defensible affirmative argument that these protections do indeed fall under the purview of the “right to housing”.
This affirmative seems especially strategic for a few reasons. First, positions regarding intimate partner violence have proliferated and been very successful in the last couple of years, which shows that judges are very willing and happy to vote on these arguments. Second, the literature on IPV positions tends to be exceptionally one-sided, and this topic doesn’t appear to be an exception. Third, there are a lot of impact arguments for intimate partner violence that can interact well with kritiks and help outweigh a variety of disadvantages. For example, Paglione argues that:
Women's legal security of tenure is a fundamental requirement for the attainment of adequate housing conditions because it shifts the power relations within the household and empowers women by granting them their right to self-determination and consequently allowing them to make independent decisions about their lives.13
12 Meliah Schultzman, “HOUSING RIGHTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS A STATE AND LOCAL LAW COMPENDIUM,” National Housing Law Project, 2008. 13 Giulia Paglione, “Domestic Violence and Housing Rights: A Reinterpretation of the Right to Housing,” Human Rights Quarterly 28, No. 1 (February 2006), 130.
Champion Briefs 31 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Thus, there are impact arguments specific to the right to housing that argue that a right to housing is a necessary prerequisite to addressing intimate partner violence and gives women a sense of self-determination that they previously lacked.
One final advantage of this position is that it avoids a lot of generic negative arguments.
Some of these include: arguments about low supply of housing, the cost of implementing a right to housing, and maybe even some disadvantages based on backlash (like politics).
Finally, this affirmative can also be read with a pretty wide variety of framework. Of course, generic utilitarianism apples. But there are other, maybe more strategic, frameworks that go with this affirmative: IPV cases has historically been successful with a non-ideal theory structural violence framework or a framework specific to intimate partner violence (although I find this argument a little weaker). All things considered, this affirmative seems to have a lot of strategic merit and not many obvious strategic downsides.
Negative
In this section, I’ll go over some of the core neg arguments. I won’t discuss answers to specific affs (like the IPV affirmative), but these positions should link to every aff even if they read a plan. Rights Bad
This is always a popular generic on rights topics. There are a couple of key arguments that people make against rights/human rights that I’ll go over here.
First, some argue that rights inevitably exclude people and create a “hierarchy of suffering”. This argument claims that even though human rights purport to be universal, someone is always excluded from them. For instance, human rights recognized in a certain
Champion Briefs 32 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
country do not always apply to immigrants or non-citizens. Jaya Ramji-Nogales explains this position:
Human rights law fails in its claims to universality of applicability, as illustrated in further detail through the example of undocumented migrants. This overclaiming prevents groups whose fundamental rights lie outside the scope of international human rights law from obtaining protection, rendering such groups vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.14
Additionally, since human rights are supposedly the most important protections, they
can be viewed as “trump cards” that allow some subsets of migrants to attain fundamental rights, while others become vulnerable to exploitation and abuse because they cannot squeeze themselves into the appropriate category laid out by the rights framework.15
A second popular critique of human rights was made by Eric Posner in his famous “The case against human rights”. Posner argues that even though human rights are universally recognized in documents like the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, human rights violations still run rampant: we think we’ve done something to stop the problem, but we really haven’t. Rather, human rights are merely formal solutions to substantive problems.16 For this argument to be offense for the negative, they must argue that human rights actually make the situation worse, not just that they’re ineffective. In my opinion, Posner’s argument is a fine defensive argument against most affirmatives, but should be coupled with something else as well.
A final argument against human rights is that they demobilize collective action by focusing on individuals rather than groups. When imbued with human rights, people stop thinking of themselves as members of an oppressed or marginalized class and instead imagine
14 Jaya Ramji-Nogales, “Undocumented Migrants and the Failures of Universal Individualism,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 47, no. 699 (2014): 706. 15 Jaya Ramji-Nogales, “Undocumented Migrants and the Failures of Universal Individualism,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 47, no. 699 (2014): 706. 16 Eric Posner, “The case against human rights,” The Guardian, 14 Dec 2014.
Champion Briefs 33 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
themselves as atomized individuals, ignoring structural problems. Ramji-Nogales also explains this position fairly clearly:
Human rights law’s narrow focus on the individual obscures larger questions of structural inequality. The individualist approach presents an atomistic conception of society that overlooks the importance of social ties and group-based identities.17
The argument against human rights is probably best read as either a kritik, arguing that rights are bad and instead we should adopt some alternative means of protections, or as a net benefit to a counterplan. The latter option seems especially attractive: the negative could defend some other way to guarantee housing without using the rights-model, which is often criticized.
This way, the negative would get all the benefits of the aff while avoiding the harm caused by human rights. Of course, this argument could also just be read as an NC with a structural violence-type framework, but this seems to me to be the least strategic way to read it.
Libertarianism
For debaters looking to take a more framework-heavy route, the libertarianism NC is always a nice generic. This argument is that only negative rights to self-ownership should be protected, rather than positive rights. Karen Selick explains the crux of this argument:
The concept that some individuals have a right to be provided with housing (or anything else) carries with it the corollary that somebody else has an obligation to provide it to them. To put it bluntly, positive rights claims can be fulfilled only by conceding that the claimant has the right to enslave her fellow citizens and expropriate their property.18
17 Jaya Ramji-Nogales, “Undocumented Migrants and the Failures of Universal Individualism,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 47, no. 699 (2014): 759. 18 Karen Selick, “Housing rights case illustrates why positive rights are phoney rights,” Financial Post, 29 Dec 2014.
Champion Briefs 34 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
This position should link to every aff except maybe affirmatives that defend very minimal, negative rights versions of the right to housing (even this depends on how the affirmative explains their position, though).
There are a variety of different philosophical defenses of libertarianism. I’ll mention three briefly here. First, debaters often defend a Kantian-style argument for libertarianism that goes to the extreme in claiming freedom can never be violated. Louis Philippe-Hodgson is a good author who explains fairly concisely a Kantian argument for freedom being the basis of state authority (although he is not, as far as I know, explicitly a libertarian).19 Second, the most famous argument for libertarianism comes from Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, in which he defends a Lockean/Kantian argument for libertarianism. Finally, some argue that discourse/argumentation ethics justify libertarianism because engaging in discourse starts from the presumption of self-ownership.
All things considered, there are several good, generic neg arguments that should apply to the vast majority of affirmatives—even if the affirmative reads a very specific plan. On the other side, there are both good whole resolution and specific affirmatives that should make for interesting, engaging debates.
19 Louis-Philippe Hodgson, “Kant on the Right to Freedom: A Defense,” Ethics 120 (July 2010): 791-819.
Champion Briefs 35 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Works Cited
“An Investigation Into the Meaning of the Term ‘United States’.” Family Guardian Fellowship. 8 Aug. 2016. http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation .htm.
Byrne, Thomas and Dennis P. Culhane. “Right to Housing: An Effective Means for Addressing Homelessness?.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 14, no. 3 (2011): 379-390.
Golay, Christophe and Melik Özden. “The Right to Housing.” Human Rights Programme of the Europe-Third World Centre (CETIM). 2007. http://www.cetim.ch/legacy/en/documents/bro7-log-A4-an.pdf.
“Guarantee.” Dictionary.com. Accessed 6 Feb 2017. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/guarantee.
Hartman, Chester. “The Case for a Right to Housing.” Housing Policy Debate 9, issue 2 (1998): 223-246.
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe. “Kant on the Right to Freedom: A Defense.” Ethics 120 (July 2010): 791-819.
Loison-Leruste, Marie and Deborah Quilgars. “Increasing Access to Housing: Implementing the Right to Housing in England and France.” European Journal of Homelessness 3, (December 2009): 75-100.
Paglione, Giulia. “Domestic Violence and Housing Rights: A Reinterpretation of the Right to Housing.” Human Rights Quarterly 28, No. 1 (February 2006), 120-147.
Posner, Eric. “The case against human rights.” The Guardian. 14 Dec 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights.
Ramji-Nogales, Jaya. “Undocumented Migrants and the Failures of Universal Individualism.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 47, no. 699 (2014): 699-763.
Schultzman, Meliah. “HOUSING RIGHTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS A STATE AND LOCAL LAW COMPENDIUM.” National Housing Law Project. 2008. http://nhlp.org/files/Domestic%20violence%20housing%20compendium%20FINAL7.pdf
Karen Selick. “Housing rights case illustrates why positive rights are phoney rights.” Financial Post. 29 Dec 2014. http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/housing-rights-case- illustrates-why-positive-rights-are-phoney-rights.
“The Right to Adequate Housing Toolkit.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Right. Accessed 6 Feb 2017. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/toolkit/Pages/RighttoAdequateHousingToolkit. aspx
Champion Briefs 36 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
Introduction
The March/April topic typically deals with broad challenges facing communities. I have personally always enjoyed debating the March/April topic because it kept me informed on the core clashes policymakers face given very general, societal problems. There aren’t as many tournaments on the March/April topic as previous topics since the January/February topic is used at certain tournaments up until the TOC. However, the March/April topic is very important as it is often the topic used at district and state tournaments. Debaters interested in competing at
NSDA Nationals, debaters with goals of doing well at their respective state tournaments, and debaters that want to finish the season strong should all prepare well for districts in order to qualify to nationals. Overall, have fun with this topic – you’re bound to learn a lot!
Background
This topic is very relevant in today’s society as homelessness is pervasive. According to a 2015 study, around 564,708 people are homeless.20 The main areas of clash in this debate are firstly moral: is homelessness justified or does the government have an obligation to help citizens in need of sustainable housing. The topic also involves economic questions: is guaranteeing housing economically feasible? These questions operate under different interpretations of the resolution: the philosophical level which discusses the moral obligation or lack of obligation to
20 National Alliance to End Homelessness, "The State of Homelessness in America – 2016.” NAEH defines homeless as “persons sleeping outside and in homeless assistance programs”
Champion Briefs 37 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
housing and the practical/implementation level, where consequences matter. I think debaters should be prepared to debate both questions.
When thinking about the implications of the resolution, it is not wise to simply think of one of the aforementioned levels as they are intertwined in policy discussions. I encourage debaters to think about the implications of a guarantee to housing. What signal does it send? Is it worth the cost? Too often, debaters gloss over the faces behind resolutions. Think about who this resolution affects. Put yourself in the shoes of the homeless and analyze the different levels of the resolution while doing research.
With that in mind, let’s start with some definitions.
The United States. LD resolutions never seem to specify whether “The United States” refers to the national government, state government, or local levels of government. I think that this means debaters have flexibility in choosing the actor as definitions can be debated since this phrase is so vague.
Ought. Similarly to most other LD resolutions, debaters can choose to define ought in terms of a moral obligation implying action or define ought to abstractly imply what is morally obligatory.
Guarantee. Guarantee is a verb with different meanings. Longman’s dictionary defines guarantee in a few different ways, with different resolutional implications. (1) “to promise to do something”; (2) “to make it certain that something will happen.”21 If guarantee is simply defined as a promise (as it is in definition 1), debaters need only debate about the intent of the United
States, not the consequences. Under this interpretation, affirmatives can win simply by arguing that homeless people have rights and the U.S. government should aim to satisfy their housing
21 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online, "Guarantee in Law topic"
Champion Briefs 38 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
needs. If the government fails or produces a state worse off for homeless people, the aff can simply claim that the attempt/promise of housing is sufficient to affirm. Furthermore, this definition doesn’t indicate that the guarantee/promise need be codified in law. Under the second definition of guarantee, consequences matter. Indeed, debaters will need to prove that homelessness will decrease by ensuring that the human right to housing is met. Debaters must be ready to debate both interpretations.
Right to Housing. The right to housing simply refers to the rights of individuals to a shelter, concurrent with certain freedoms and entitlements, outlined by the United Nations.22 I do not think this will be a contention topicality argument.
Overall, it seems that debaters have liberty to choose whether this resolution should be debated on the philosophical and/or practical level and can specify an actor. While there aren’t many topicality concerns, I do think that there are many plans that could be run and are topical.
The resolution doesn’t specify to whom this right is guaranteed to, so I think plans are topical. I envision there being many affirmatives claiming a right to housing for a certain, neglected group of individuals. Affs can defend their plan through the usual theoretical arguments and argue that the resolution never specifies to all residents.
Affirmative
Aff Strategy
There are a variety of affirmative strategies on this topic ranging from philosophical affs to plans. I recommend that you begin constructing your aff case by broadly researching the topic
22 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "The Right to Adequate Housing," Fact Sheet No. 21
Champion Briefs 39 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
literature and different levels of the resolution (philosophical and practical). Below are a few advantage areas Affs can cover.
Advantage areas
1] Right to Housing and Disposability: I think this aff is at the core of the philosophical debate. The argument is simply that housing is a right that prescribes justice, equivalent to rights to vote and own property. This right is especially important because of the access it provides to other benefits. Hartman outlines that the right to housing is a gateway right that leads to expanded economic opportunity and improved health.23 24 I can envision debaters reading this type of offense with two frameworks: a Kantian rights-based framework to argue for the validity of the right to housing itself, and a more critical oppression framework to argue that the politics of disposability has caused homelessness and a right to housing is a value reorientation towards respecting dignity. I think this type of affirmative would work well in local tournaments as it is the most intuitive argument.
2] Economic Benefits: This aff would be run with a utilitarian framework and would argue that guaranteed housing improves the economy, decreasing poverty, and stimulating development. There has been plenty of research done on the relationship between affordable housing and economic development. Research shows that housing “increases spending and employment in the surrounding economy, acts as an important source of revenue for local governments, and reduces the likelihood of foreclosure and its associated costs.”25 This aff
23 Chester Hartman, "The Case for a Right to Housing," Housing Policy Debate, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1998 24 Bret Thiele, "The Human Right to Adequate Housing: A Tool for Promoting and Protecting Individual and Community Health," American Journal of Public Health, Volume 92, Issue 5, May 2002 25 Keith Wardrip, Laura Williams, and Suzanne Hague, "The Role of Affordable Housing in Creating Jobs and Stimulating Local Economic Development: A Review of the Literature," Center for Housing Policy, 2011
Champion Briefs 40 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
would need good inherency arguments about why the economy is on a brink and why housing specifically will sufficiently reverse that trend.
3] Women: Another interesting advantage area is about women’s empowerment. There are different approaches to this, but I think the strongest argument would be a critical aff about domestic violence. Zorza found that “battered women and their children compose a significant proportion of occupants of homeless shelters.”26 There is a compelling argument to be made that guaranteeing housing to this very vulnerable population helps empower them and fights the consequences of domestic violence. Paglione argues that “when battered women are prevented by laws, policies, customs or culture from attaining a legally secured tenure, the possibility of leaving an abusive husband is very limited.”27 A right to housing would help women escape from the cycle of loneliness and helplessness that hold women back. Affs that want to discuss women’s rights without the domestic violence lens, can discuss why homelessness disproportionately harms women and why guaranteed housing empowers them, especially single women with children.
4] Felons. Another advantage area relates to giving felons a right to housing. It is very obvious that our criminal justice system is very flawed. After felons are released from prison, they are often denied access to housing. Guaranteeing felons a right to housing would provide them equal opportunities and afford them with the dignity the criminal justice system gutted them of. This type of argument would work very well with a critical and an oppression-based framework.
26 Joan Zorza, "Woman Battering: A Major Cause of Homelessness," Clearinghouse Review, Volume 25, Issue 4, 1991 27 Giulia Paglione, "Domestic Violence and Housing Rights: A Reinterpretation of the Right to Housing," Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 28, Number 1, 2006
Champion Briefs 41 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Overall, there are a variety of different affirmative positions that can be read regardless of your debate style.
Negative
Neg Strategy
There are a variety of different negative positions on this topic. I recommend that all debaters have different types of cases in their toolbox to most effectively clash with different affs, especially plans.
Negative Cases
Racism NC: The premise of this NC is simply that if housing was enshrined as a guaranteed right, the United States would do a poor job of upholding it in a discriminatory way.
Negatives could argue that low-income and racial minorities would be forced into poor housing in poor neighborhoods without any regard under the guise of “fulfilling the right.” Obviously, affirmatives would argue that some housing is preferable to no housing, so negatives have to be prepared to argue that the US would pursue discriminatory housing schemes which is prima facie immoral, and/or why the consequences of such an action outweigh the benefits. This argument has historical ties since there is evidence of housing discrimination during the GI bill’s passage.28
Counterplans
I think that there are many advantage counterplans on this topic. Negs can defend policies that aim to reduce homelessness without guaranteeing housing rights to populations. Examples
28 Juan F. Perea, "Doctrines of Delusion: How the History of the G.I. Bill and Other Inconvenient Truths Undermine the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Jurisprudence," University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Volume 75, 2014
Champion Briefs 42 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
of these policies include providing a universal basic income, promoting microfinance, etc. I think all negatives should have some advantage counterplan ready to go to read with a disadvantage.
Disadvantages
The most common disad I foresee on this topic is an economic disad. Husok argues that subsidized housing in the form of physical homes or housing vouchers is counterproductive and prevents the market from correcting housing on its own.29 Another interesting disad would be a means testing disad. The premise behind means testing is that checking eligibility requirements of underprivileged populations to ensure they are “poor enough” to qualify for some government remedy (housing subsidies in this case) degrades their dignity and has a litany of other consequences.
Kritiks
I think a cap K will be the most common kritik on this topic. The core of the argument is that housing subsidies are a ploy by capitalists to pursue their agenda of oppressing the lower class while benefiting themselves. There are many authors who argue that housing actually benefits the rich at the expense of the poor through housing taxes etc.30 Another K I think could be common would be a poverty discourse K that simply argues that the way in which the aff represents the poor as a group of individuals incapable of attaining their own housing and in need of external assistance is demeaning rhetoric. This is a very generic K that has been read on many topics.
29 Howard Husock, "We Don't Need Subsidized Housing," City Journal, 1997 30 Peter Dreier, "The Truth about Federal Housing Subsidies: Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor," 2001
Champion Briefs 43 Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur March/April 2017
Concluding Thoughts
Overall, I think this topic has good ground on both sides and should lead to some good clash. Debaters competing on all levels have plenty of options to suit their needs. Debaters should definitely research the different advantage areas outlined in this brief. But by no means should this brief be an end to research. I encourage debaters to continue to research new ideas and new advantage areas by understanding the big picture first, instead of simply diving immediately into the specific areas provided here. A comprehensive understanding of the topic is far preferable and will lead to a better understanding against positions you may not have heard of. It has been my experience that most debaters prepare for March/April tournaments far less than they do January/February tournaments. As such, you all have a great opportunity to start now and be prepared!
Good luck!
Mitali Mathur
About Mitali Mathur
Mitali competed in LD for 4 years at Greenhill School with success on the local, state, and national level. She qualified to the Texas Forensics Association debate tournament three times, placing third her junior and senior year. Over her debate career, she cleared at national tournaments including St. Marks, Grapevine, Meadows, Glenbrooks, Isidore Newman, and Emory. She also qualified to the TOC her junior and senior year. Mitali was honored to be a member of the USA Debate Team, through which she placed second in the Harvard Westlake Tournament and Holy Cross Tournament, won the Blake Tournament, and the team placed 10th in the world at the World Schools Debating Championship held in Singapore. She currently attends the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
Champion Briefs 44 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
Introduction
Another year, another topic that concerns the government’s fundamental role in providing socio-economic rights and its influence in the market. The beneficial characteristic of topics that concern distributive justice is that they often encompass arguments from multiple different debate styles and philosophical positions. The diversity of arguments on this topic should provide a long-needed contrast from recent topics. This topic analysis begins by defining key phrases and words in the resolution that may alter how one sets burdens and frames offense in round. I will then offer a couple of positions on the affirmative and negative that I find either strategic or a core part of the discussions within the topic literature.
Important Definitions
“ought”
In regards to defining ought, one must remember that this is the resolution’s evaluative term, so it necessarily constrains what type of statement is being proven true. If one takes a moral interpretation of ought, then the resolution concerns whether or not some interpretation of morality allows/disallows the foundation for the right to housing. This then means that the fundamental question that is attempted to be answered is a normative one. This would also modify how we understand the concept of rights. If the right to housing is, “a moral right,” then what this, “initially necessitates [is] an abstract discussion, which defines rights and how they
Champion Briefs 45 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
might be categorized,” and then attach this notion in a meaningful way to housing.31 As such, this interpretation lends itself to a rigorous philosophical and principled discussion about how a right to housing could be grounded. This means that the discussion entailed is one concerning,
“why [housing] ought to be there,” as opposed to, “what this provision might be.”32 In this instance, the right to housing is a question about fundamental values and principles that are sufficient to generate a rights claim. Other definitions of ought can also be manipulated to narrow the scope of the resolution in the context of the right to housing as well. A definition of ought that limits the question to whether or not a legal obligation exists to provide the right to housing could also be strategic or beneficial for framing arguments such as international law or constitutionality. In either case, the definition of ought can significantly constrain how burdens and frameworks are justified.
“guarantee”
The definition of guarantee is also another important point for determining which affs are topical. For instance, one definition of guarantee is, “an assurance for the fulfillment of a condition…by which one person undertakes to secure another…in the enjoyment of something.”33 This definition may seem to suggest that the important characteristic of a guarantee is that it is a promise to bring about a certain state of affairs. In this example, one could argue that topical affs must defend implementation in some way because of the linkage between an assurance and bringing about a certain state of affairs. Even more so, some could additionally argue that this also augments how we understand the type of right that is being
31 King, Peter. “Housing as a freedom right.” Housing Studies, Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672, September 2003 32 See 12. 33 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guarantee
Champion Briefs 46 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
defended; if guarantee is equated to a positive assurance to provide some good, then this will exclude affirmatives that only exclusively talk about a “negative right” to housing (more on this below). However, if one understands guarantee as just a simple promise or assurance that a government makes to its citizens, then it may not necessitate that one defends implementation, since this definition leans more towards debates that are seemingly more abstract and philosophical about what the government’s promises should be.
“right’ to housing”
When any resolution mentions the word “right,” one can expect a lot of topicality debates because “right” has a lot of potential meanings philosophically. In addition, the meaning of
“right” can be augmented as a term of art as it relates to housing. First, I will discuss important philosophical distinctions between types of rights, what the consequences are in terms of burden structures, and then finally move to a discussion of how a right to housing is defined within international law.
While there are many important philosophical arguments and distinctions made about rights, one of the most important of these is the distinction between positive and negative rights.
Positive rights concern what individuals are entitled to, and compel a duty upon other individuals or institutions to take some proactive action in order to adhere to them. One example of this right may be the right to legal counsel; the government ensures that those who are being prosecuted who cannot afford lawyers are given public defenders. In this sense, a duty is created upon the government to proactively do something on behalf of another. Negative rights, however, possess extremely different meanings. Rather than obligating proactive action, negative rights require that another individual or an institution not interfere with one’s rights. Looking back to the
Champion Briefs 47 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
previous example, a negative right to legal counsel would require that the government not interfere with your ability to obtain legal counsel; the government cannot just arbitrarily deny due process. A more apt example of negative rights appears in the United States Constitution: free speech. A constitutional obligation exists that an institution may not interfere with a citizen’s freedom of expression. Whether or not something is considered a positive or negative right thus imposes different governmental duties.
In the context of the right to housing, whether such a right is positive or negative is extremely important. If the right to housing is understood as a positive right, then the government is obligated to take proactive action to provide access to housing to those who need it. In this instance, debates would focus on how such a right could be grounded. Much like how other debates surrounding socio-economic rights go, the debates concerning a positive right to housing would follow a similar path. By contrast, if we understand the right to housing as a negative right, then the government simply has a duty to prevent arbitrary interference with one’s ability to acquire housing. I think that the facile understanding of a negative right to housing would be that the government must not interfere, which is a relatively intuitive, but misguided position. The better positions that I think develop from the interpretation of a negative right to housing concerns discrimination in access to housing. Rather than having to prove that the government should provide housing, these affirmatives would just simply need to prove that the government should prevent discrimination in access. In fact, there is a significant amount of topic literature surrounding forms of legal discrimination in access to housing in the United
States. One of the more straightforward positions regards the ability for homeless shelters, landlords, and other housing providers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.34 While
34 Armstrong, Carlie. "Slow Progress: New Federal Rules Only Begin to Address Housing Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity." The Modern American 9, no. 1 (2013): 2-7
Champion Briefs 48 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
these affirmatives seem substantively strategic, as mentioned before, prepare for a lot of topicality and theory debates because, substantively, these arguments may appear hard to defeat.
Within the context of understanding the right to housing as a term of art, not much guidance can be given on whether or not a positive or negative rights interpretation outright should be preferred. The CESCR defines seven core components of the right to housing: legal security of tenure, availability of services and resources, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location, and cultural adequacy.35 While some of these components appear straightforward, it doesn’t really make the issue of whether or not the right to housing is purely a positive or negative right. For instance, the principle regarding security of tenure has some aspects of a negative right; landlords cannot harass or forcefully evict residents arbitrarily. This seems to possess some principle of non-interference at its heart. On the other hand, other pillars lend themselves to a positive rights interpretation that may require the government take some proactive action of provision. Part of the complication in the definition codified within international law is that it was made intentionally broad. Indeed, the note mentions that, “the right to housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense… [such as] merely having a roof over one’s head.” The right to housing has some link to the enjoyment of other fundamental human rights (both positive and negative), so it is hard to codify it in a narrow way.
The Committee identifies that the right is fundamentally concerned with one’s right to live somewhere with, “security, peace, and dignity.” Unfortunately, due to the very broad nature of the right to housing as a term of art within international law, one can expect many topicality debates.
35 CESCR General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing (Art. 11 (1) of the Covenant), December 1991
Champion Briefs 49 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
Affirmative Positions
Kantian Positions
One of the principled, or more framework leaning, positions that one can use to affirm the topic comes from the Kantian tradition. There are conflicting interpretations of Kantian political and ethical philosophy regarding notions of distributive justice, poverty, and freedom.
One side of the aisle supports the idea that the state should support its citizens’ basic needs, such as those in a Rawlsian tradition, while the other side of the aisle argues that distributive justice is a violation of freedom. Within the first tradition, the right to housing can be relatively easily justified.
First, the notion of independence is important for Kantian philosophy. It is most easily defined as the ability to set your own purposes freely. This means one remains independent to the extent that one is able to set and pursue their own ends without arbitrary interference. This differs from a notion of autonomy because it is relational and grounded in social interactions, since it allows for the possibility of one’s ends to be determined by others. Since rights stem from the notion of independence, they are claims to be free from states of dependence on others.36 From this perspective, the right to housing can be justified on the basis of independence.
Since, “the possibility of amassing land makes it conceivable that… all land may be appropriated… leaving [one] literally with no place to exist,” which results in a dependence on the will or generosity of others, which one has no right to.37 In this sense, the state exists to rectify conditions of dependence, and so the right to housing may be justified.
36 Ripstein, Arthur. Force and freedom. Harvard University Press, 2010. 37 Weinrib, Ernest J. “Poverty and Property in Kant’s System of Rights.” 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 795 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol78/iss3/5
Champion Briefs 50 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
Even more so, one could argue that a necessary feature of a rightful condition is that the state support those who lack basic needs. In this case, a constitutive feature of a civil condition is that individual citizens are independent. The establishment of a civil condition cannot, “proceed without ensuring everyone’s sustenance.” The state’s obligation to support the poor thus fulfills a condition necessary for a just state to exist, because otherwise, relations of dominance that exist outside the rightful condition continue to exist. Moreover, if one concedes that freedom is contextual and relational, then one must have a place to be in order to exercise one’s freedom.
One can then argue that a right to housing could be justified since it is, at minimum, an instrumental good to the effective exercise of one’s independence.38
Finally, one can make more empirical claims about how certain individuals are treated without full human dignity, and that the right to housing is a step to rectifying that imbalance.
For instance, some argue that those who are homeless are not treated as full citizens, since their most basic activities are criminalized.39 In this sense, the right to housing is an effective rights- based remedy that confers dignity on marginalized individuals.
Critical positions
Another great aspect of this topic is that there are a myriad of critical positions and styles that one can invoke. One important example of the degradation of the right to housing in context is the political situation following Hurricane Katrina. After this disaster, Black people faced disproportionate rates of poverty and homelessness, coupled with the destruction of public
38 King, Peter. “Housing as a freedom right.” Housing Studies, Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672, September 2003 39 Tars, Eric S., et al. "Can I Get Some Remedy: Criminalization of Homelessness and the Obligation to Provide an Effective Remedy." Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 45 (2013): 738.
Champion Briefs 51 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
housing due to the adoption of HOPE VI.40 An important discussion within the literature is the impact and legacy of HOPE VI, which, in part, allowed for the destruction of housing without the requirement of building a similar number of units destroyed. Some argue that this allows cities to let housing fall into disrepair and causes mass displacement of different marginalized groups who rely on subsidized housing.41 What is required, then, is a comprehensive revision of the way the U.S. provides and ensures the right to housing, that doesn’t further cause displacement and gentrification. One could either read this with a structural violence framework, or a role of the ballot that requires the judge to resist institutional racism.
Another issue within the literature concerns women’s right to housing and how IPV frustrates access to housing. Drawing from principles in international law that prevents discriminatory implementation of rights, Farha argues that not ensuring the safety of survivors
(through an analysis of the patriarchal context of the home) is a violation of the right to housing.42 She argues that the human right to housing must be rethought as a “women’s” human right, in order to rectify both the patriarchal interpretation of rights discourse, as well as the material condition of women. In this sense, the right to housing is meant to ensure the safety and livelihood of women seeking peace, security, and safety. In addition, she provides substantive reasons why a rights-based framework is necessary for articulating women’s access to housing, which should prove beneficial when leveraging against particular Kritiks on this topic.
40 Woods, Clyde Adrian. “Do You Know What It Means to Miss New Orleans?: Katrina, Trap Economics, and the Rebirth of the Blues.” American Quarterly Vol 57 No 4 December 2005, pp. 1005-1018 41 Goetz, Edward G. "Where have all the towers gone? The dismantling of public housing in US cities." Journal of Urban Affairs 33.3 (2011): 267-287. 42 Farha, Leilani. "Is There a Woman in the House-Re/conceiving the Human Right to Housing." Can. J. Women & L. 14 (2002): 118.
Champion Briefs 52 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
Performance debate also has some somewhat topical applications for this topic as well.
Woods argues that the blues tradition is one of the best modes of challenging neo-plantation politics, by challenging bonds of dependency and unfreedom that the system of white supremacy generates. He writes this in context of New Orleans, and argues for a cultural revolution of sorts where, “residents… return to their homes…New Orleans is a city whose people and their ancestors will call forth the dawn of a new world,” reclaiming sites of Black culture. This appears complementary to bell hooks’ argument concerning home-place and its relationship to liberatory strategies.43 While this is just a single example of what more creative critical positions could entail, this topic has a lot of diversity.
“Tricky” positions or, very limited anti-discrimination affs
While I do not like to use the term “tricky” to describe these positions, I use this term to refer to affirmative positions that alter the burden structure in ways that seemingly skew substantive debate towards the affirmative. The most common type of trick that these cases will establish is an alternative definition or foundation for rights. As discussed above, if the right to housing is argued for as a negative right, there is very little the negative could argue that says that the government should either not forcefully evict people, or rectify legal forms of discrimination. Alternatively, if we understand the right to housing as a civil right, then the justification for whether or not a civil right exists is dependent on whether a legitimate claim to discrimination based on a protected characteristic exists.
43 Hooks, Bell. Homeplace: A site of resistance. 1990.
Champion Briefs 53 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
The first and most common kind of position an affirmative could defend regards
LGBTQ+ housing discrimination. Currently, sexual orientation is not a protected class under the
Fair Housing Act or, more generally, civil rights law.44 The result is that landlords and shelters can exclude individuals based on their perceived sexuality. Aside from the inherently problematic issue of arbitrary discrimination, the larger result is increased homelessness particularly for LGBTQ+ youth. Since most shelters are religiously affiliated and privately owned, and due to the way the U.S. currently views “religious freedom,” LGBTQ+ youth often are excluded from receiving services.45 In addition to other recommendations, Hunter argues that the U.S. should adopt more comprehensive anti-discrimination laws that help protect LGBTQ+ individuals. Whether or not discrimination from homeless shelters is topical may be up for debate, however, it is important to note that the international legal definition of the right to housing also has an anti-discrimination clause.
Another affirmative that may focus on the adoption of more stringent anti-discrimination laws in housing concerns the status of those with criminal records. Both city authorities as well as federal authorities excludes those with criminal records from receiving public housing benefits.46 There are a couple of practical issues with this. First is that this most likely has a racially disparate impact due to the overwhelming number of those incarcerated being men and women of color. Further, from a more consequentialist perspective, one could argue that this increases the chances of recidivism, since these individuals lack basic means for effective re-
44 See 15. 45 Hunter, Ernst. "What's good for the gays is good for the gander: Making homeless youth housing safer for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth." Family Court Review 46.3 (2008): 543-557. 46 Carey, Corinne A. "No second chance: People with criminal records denied access to public housing." U. Tol. L. Rev. 36 (2004): 545.
Champion Briefs 54 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
entry. Regardless, this position may prove strategic on the level of a negative rights based violation.
Negative Arguments
Nozick and Rights paradoxes
As mentioned earlier, there is an alternative interpretation of Kantian political philosophy in the form of a minimalist state. Libertarian philosophy stresses the freedom and independence of the individual above all else, and strongly disapproves of most forms of distributive justice.
As Nozick argues, “principles of distributive justice involve appropriating the actions of other persons,” for ends that they did not consent to, which means that taking the labor of another person is a violation of their independence.47 In addition, Nozick makes a more principled argument about using someone as a means to an end for some larger social good, such as welfare, arguing that the state cannot compel or force others to sacrifice some for the sake of others.
In a similar vein, some argue that we cannot ground the right to housing within a typical rights based discourse. King poses a couple of problems to the rights-based justification for housing and welfare provision that hinge on a Kantian tradition.48 One objection relates to perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties regard duties that individuals have universally by merit of a common notion of humanity. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, are contingent on particular situations that arise before agents. King’s argument is that a welfare based right can
47 Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic books, 2013. 48 King, Peter. "Can we use rights to justify housing provision?." Housing, Theory and Society 17.1 (2000): 27-34.
Champion Briefs 55 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
only be an imperfect duty, which isn’t sufficient grounding for a right. He argues that we must move past the ideas of rights in order to justify the provision of housing.
Racism/Gentrification DA
One of the most rigorously discussed issues in contemporary urban planning is the notion of gentrification, and how it affects particular communities. It is necessary to note something at the outset: the concept of gentrification is very complex and multi-faceted; the definition and its causes are still up for debate. Given that, it is necessary to outline two opposing positions on the causes of gentrification. The first is the rent-gap thesis, or “supply-side” gentrification.
Essentially, this position maintains that the cause of gentrification is a difference in price between the current value of property and the potential or actual value of property. As a result, the land is developed into new hipster-y territory. Essentially, developers are the driving force behind gentrification. The second, and opposite, position maintains that gentrification is caused by demand, rather than by supply. At the heart, it is due to an emerging managerial and office worker class that needs easier access to the city, so developers respond to demand. In this sense, gentrification is choice-driven, as opposed to supply-driven. Depending on which theoretical model of gentrification a particular researcher adopts will drastically affect their position on gentrification. This should also act as an additional means of comparing evidence on this particular issue, as many researchers make strong arguments in favor of their model.
In regards to how public housing may spur even further gentrification, it depends on the model of public housing that the affirmative adopts. Mixed-income housing, while espousing the
Champion Briefs 56 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
ideals of integration and inclusion, may actually create more intense gentrification.49 Rather than cooperative, mixed-income housing may actually allow for rich and middle class interests to supersede those of low-income and racialized communities. Instead of democratic control of development, there is further control of the city by corporate interests.
Right to the City CP
By far one of the arguments on this topic that I find the most interesting, the right to the city emerges out of the writing of the 20th century Marxist, Henri Lefebvre. The fundamental thesis of this argument is that the processes of urbanization of exceedingly gotten out of the hands of those who inhabit cities, and increasingly in the hands of corporations; capitalism has made urban development something largely undemocratic. Indeed, contemporary forms of urbanization are coded to further commit us to systems of global capital.50 A right to the city is a proposed alternative to capitalistic and anti-democratic development within cities. A right to the city is fundamentally concerned with putting development and well-being of individuals within cities in the hands of those who actually live in it. It is important to note that this may seem plan- plus at first, because, certainly, a right to housing can be part of the collective of rights that a right to the city may try to establish. However, the right to the city is fundamentally different than the right to the housing; we should never mistake a part for its whole. First, a demand for the right to the city is not a demand for a legalistic remedy within current institutions, it is always striving against capitalism and thus against current institutional arrangements for a city-to-
49 Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income schools and housing: advancing the neoliberal urban agenda." Journal of Education Policy 23.2 (2008): 119-134. 50 Harvey, David. "The right to the city." International journal of urban and regional research 27.4 (2003): 939- 941.
Champion Briefs 57 Topic Analysis by Alex Yoakum March/April 2017
come.51 Even more so, it is an anti-statist alternative, creating a politics of the inhabitant as opposed to a top-down political approach.52 Finally, Harvey, Purcell, and Marcuse make arguments as to the benefit of a collectivist right as opposed to an individualistic right that the affirmative defends.
Ultimately, the right to the city position critiques capitalism, with a very specific alternative. In this sense, the typical Cap K’s debaters run ought to possess more nuance as a result. While this position is indeed super interesting, it is important to keep in mind that the biggest challenge will be articulating how this alternative is exclusive from the aff. Aside from that, there are decent arguments in the topic literature as to why a push for more democratization, as opposed to less, is necessary for urban development.
Conclusion
To conclude, this topic is very complex both due to its phrasing as well as the rigorous academic debates that are occurring in the topic literature. Hopefully most debaters, judges, and coaches will find this topic refreshing after several months of topics that don’t lend themselves to particular forms of debate. The pure diversity of arguments that can be generated on this topic should prevent it from becoming stale too quickly.
Good Luck!
Alex Yoakum
51 Marcuse, Peter. "From critical urban theory to the right to the city." City 13.2-3 (2009): 185-197. 52 Purcell, Mark. "To inhabit well: Counterhegemonic movements and the right to the city." Urban Geography 34.4 (2013): 560-574.
Champion Briefs 58 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
Alternative Argumentation by Bailey Rung
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
Introduction
This paper will analyze the 2017 March-April LD Housing resolution from both contemporary critical and policy debate standpoints. While it first blanch one might assume the resolution to suffer in a side-bias towards the affirmative, a review of the literature and basic mechanics of policy debate should produce a sufficiently deep and balanced topic. Additionally, many perceive the resolution’s request to guarantee a right as impeding the ability to find varied, specific advocacies. This can also be quickly corrected by exploring the history and basis of right to housing laws. Specific care will be given to frame the topic in such a way that each side can reciprocally engage with a core of strong harms areas as well as advocacies.
In order to best frame the resolution, common themes in the literature such as questions of international treaty obligations, the discourse of human rights, case law on fair housing, critical perspectives and the interplay of social justice theories will be discussed in the context of affirmative and negative burdens. We will then discuss these areas as we define the in terms of how they can be operationalized as arguments and positions.
Literature Review & Division of ground
There are two key concepts that not only make the housing debate a poignant one, but also set argumentative table so to speak. The first is the rising unaffordability of homes and the
Champion Briefs 59 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
looming concerns of homelessness nascent in a post-recession US.53 The implication is that the object of the harms – poor living conditions – is a distinctly material and policy based discussion. Housing issues are profoundly damaging on the personal level and are intimately tied to legislative outcomes (not mention offer solid uniqueness and inherency claims). The second concept is international human rights doctrine. A wide regime of international treaties have been advanced and integrated at a high level due to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural – both of which prescribe a universal human right to adequate living.54 The implication here is that the discussion of housing rights is a global issue in spirit and size, warranting deep analysis of both legislative processes but as well the fundamental issues of personhood. Both observations seem to produce the conclusion that debates over housing must conduct rigorous ethical inquiry from the position of a policy maker or spectator. For debaters, the bottom line is also a unique opportunity – the literature base at your disposal is a syncretic of high philosophy and political activism as a means to participate in meaningful dialogue over housing reform.55
Treating the housing debate as part and parcel with international human rights law discussion also has merit in its ability to define the parameters of the topic, not just its qualities.
The UN treats the right to housing a list at least inclusive of “(1) legal security of tenure, (2) availability of services, (3) affordability, (4) habitability, (5) accessibility, (6) location, and (7) cultural adequacy.10”56 The UN’s conceptualization also considers the motivating material
53 ABIGAIL SINDZINSKI 2016. Curbed. http://www.curbed.com/2016/1/27/10843266/buying-homes-major-cities- unaffordable-new-york-san-francisco-la 54 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf 55 Eric Tars. 2016. NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUSING COALITION. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/2016AG_Chapter_1-6.pdf 56 THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072632-AdvancingtheRighttoHousingIHR2122016final.pdf
Champion Briefs 60 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
implications of housing as a right, discussing structural concerns like identity (Race & Gender) and wealth (Class & Poverty) as well as proximate concerns like economic growth, food security, and health.4 Conceding to the international, human rights view of the housing debate provides the clearest parameters of advocacies and harms.
This approach is also consistent with US legal and social discussions. The evolution of fair housing rights domestically provides the ground for legal contestation, and international law as well as the human toll provide key focal points in policy dialogue57.
Additionally, proposed US legal action like affordability standards, physical condition and space standards, and provision of a suitable living environment seem to be mesh well with the UN’s prescriptions examined above.5 While the US does not directly enumerate a “right to housing”, it does have a legal framework for fair housing grounded in the Fair Housing Act. The FHA, along with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Americans with Disabilities Act provide standards to allow equal access to housing in the private domain and establish benchmarks for public housing.58 The US’s legislative framework should be explored to contextualize proposed policies, and as well to resolve the difference of a right to housing (as the resolution calls for) and a right to fair housing (as seems to be status quo law). 59 The exigencies for housing policy
(or justifications for discussion) have a rich and widely discussed base in identity politics, especially considering a deep history of housing discrimination that lingers today.6061 Concerns
57 Chester Hartman. 2006. National Housing Institute. http://nhi.org/online/issues/148/righttohousing.html 58 https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights 59 Robert Silverman & Kelly Patterson. 2011. Fair and Affordable Housing in the U.S.: Trends, Outcomes, Future Directionshttps://books.google.com/books?id=GOOGy6Kg9UsC&pg= 60 Lindsey McCarthy. 2013. People, Place, and Policy. http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ppp-online/homelessness-and-identity- a-critical-review-of-the-literature-and-theory/ 61 Alexis Madrigal. 2014. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing- policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/
Champion Briefs 61 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
over housing in the US also implicate macroeconomic shifts, population health, and even political engagement.626364
Returning to the original concepts of housing costs in the US and the role of international human rights law, two things should become apparent: First, must conduct rigorous ethical inquiry from the position of a policy maker or spectator. Second, examples of case law and points of debate in these two fields should serve as the starting points for research for debaters wishing to pursue this approach to debate.
Additionally, a few burdens for each side can be deduced from the above analysis:
First, the affirmative should propose a policy consistent with the UN adequate housing standards as a means to provide the right to housing. This parametricized burden is justified by the prescriptive and legal nature of international human rights doctrine. The burden of proof then is to demonstrate how enactment of a certain policy secures the right to housing. The negative’s job, then, is not to definitively prove the lack of a right to housing, but to prove in some form that the affirmative’s “guarantee” is a bad idea. This is true insofar as negative holds the burden of rejoinder. This is also desirable given the depth of literature on the issue, as well as the lack of justification for homelessness as good or acceptable. The negative then, simply has to prove that the undesirable consequences or implications of the affirmative are the most pressing ethical concern in the debate. Ethical frameworks, as mentioned, generally will gravitate towards evaluation of the relationship between human flourishing and policymaking. While this observation may seem banal, it’s exciting in the sense that normative ethics debates are suited for
62 Michela Zonta & Sarah Edelman. 2017. Center for American Progress.https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/01/09/296114/toward-jobs-and-justice/ 63 Dale Dove. 2017. The Herald. http://www.heraldonline.com/opinion/article128420359.html 64 Michela Zonta et al. 2016. Center for American Progress
Champion Briefs 62 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
this topic. The right to housing is intimately embedded in utilitarian, deontological, and power/identity-based critical theorization.65 In distinction from the past two topics, the wording of the resolution puts no extra constraints on the use of moral lenses in evaluating offense.
Affirmative Arguments
As mentioned, the affirmative’s burden should bet demonstrate how enactment of a certain policy secures the right to housing.
These policies should follow under the purview of (1) legal security of tenure, (2) availability of services, (3) affordability, (4) habitability, (5) accessibility, (6) location, and (7) cultural adequacy. These directly qualify as guarantees to the right to housing, and offer substantive ground for fiat’d advocacies contextual to US policymaking.66 The list for potential advocacies, then include increasing:
- Legal protections from discrimination
- Expansion of government assistance programs & subsidies
- Zoning & Construction regulations
- Special provisions for underprivileged groups
Traditional US housing policy debates have looked to ethical frameworks like market- focused utilitarianism, intrinsic goods, human rights, social relationality, and environmentalism.67 Thus, there are a few distinct advantage areas available to the affirmative:
- Economic stimulus and workforce productivity
65 James Nickel. 2014. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/ 66 National Economic and Social Rights Initiative. https://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to- housing 67 Tim Iglesias. 2009. Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982647
Champion Briefs 63 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
- Educational outcomes
- Human psychological health
- Human physical health
- Inclusivity of democratic and social institutions
- Environmental impact and urbanization
- Institutional oppression
Two considerations follow from these recommendations: First, debaters should ensure their advantage links and internal links are in conversation with the specific type of housing reform advocated for. Because policy mechanisms vary widely, care should be taken to ensure that offense is made as specific to the chosen mechanism as possible. Second, debaters should ensure their framework evidence is in the context of housing policy at the least. With a rich literature base and the potential for nuance, this will produce more educational and balanced debates.
Negative Arguments
Given the function of the phrase “ought to guarantee the right” and the affirmative’s duty to parametricize, the negative simply then has to prove that the undesirable consequences or implications of the affirmative are the most pressing ethical concern in the debate. This is simply to say the negative doesn’t have to prove the converse of the resolution true, just to demonstrate the specific instance of the affirmative is a bad idea. The implications for the negative, then, are similar to the caution provided at the bottom of Section III (Affirmative Arguments). First, the negative must begin their research at any level (Kritiks, DAs, Case turns) by building up a link core inclusive of the different ways to secure the right to housing. Generic topic links will not be
Champion Briefs 64 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
enough just given the ability for the affirmative to rotate between regulation, subsidies, and penalties. The negative should work to ensure core topic positions have links specific to the advocacy in question. Second, the negative must holistically prepare impact framing. Given the multiplicity of topical frameworks combined with the need to evaluate consequences of policy rather than justification of rights, the negative should focus on developing utility for impacts at any level. Examples include preparing to link economic consequences of subsidization to frameworks prioritizing autonomy, or critical impacts about consumption to housing advocacies that impact out to consequences like epidemics or educational outcomes. Both these recommendations will be critically important in not just shaping positions, but also framing the duty of the negative in-round.
Theory
First, the negative should gather interpretations of the words Guarantee, Right, and
Housing. Definitions of guarantee can constrain plans to only positive actions like subsidization or restrictions like equal access laws. This can help secure basic spending or chilling links, as well as generate competition on process counterplans. Defining Right in the context of housing sets the limit for what entitlements each individual is endowed – for instance the negative can interpret a right to exclude plans that are beneficial but not necessarily from a standpoint of affirming individual rights. This is crucial to exclude tangential advocacies that make minor repairs to housing policy. Defining housing should be a basic tool to exclude affirmatives that secure access to other property related services that might not necessarily interact with the fundamental question of securing a place to abide.
Second, the negative should develop a few generic specification shells. Because the words guarantee and the nature of the literature ask the affirmative to implement a policy reform,
Champion Briefs 65 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
the affirmative could thus be said to have a burden to prove the mechanics of the plan. From a broad standpoint, the negative should call for the details of implementing said guarantees as a means to secure agent and mechanism links. More specifically, the negative should interpret expected plan mechanisms (subsidization, regulation, and penalty) to necessitate specification of the details necessary to accomplish that act. The more contextual the interpretation is to the verb in the plan text, the better the brightline and potential for abuse is established. This can be useful in everything to securing links and competition, to failing the affirmative’s burden of proof.
DAs
First, the negative should develop two core disadvantage areas – spending and chilling.
At base, the affirmative plan will either increase a form of monetary assistance to increase access or regulate services to dismantle barriers. These two possible directions lend themselves to the starting point for topic DA files. A spending DA should at base argue that housing appropriations trade-off with other social service spending – after all, cut-go rules make discretionary spending zero-sum.68 The advantage is the ability to interact the value of other social welfare programs against housing, which can both turn and outweigh case. A chilling DA draws its link based off regulations discouraging investment or other market behaviors. The negative should focus its attention on articulating how various forms of housing rules weaken the housing market from the profit or investment standpoints. Generally speaking, all of these iterations should impact out to a great instability in the provision of housing or other living necessities. Again, the benefit is the negative can articulate how this both turns the affirmative’s promise of housing and includes larger impacts stemming from economic paucity
68 House Rules. https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/114/PDF/114-Protocols-Post.pdf
Champion Briefs 66 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
CPs
First, the negative has excellent ground to engage in an agent debate. Resorting to old school roots like a states CP and a federalism DA against a congress plan or a courts CP against a states aff may seem too simple, but they offer a good starting point to developing a generic topic file – plus their continued prevalence in policy debate seems to be a positive indicator to the viability of the position. Housing policy literature is steeped in discussion of the preferability of state vs. national government, as well as legislative vs. judicial means.69
Second, the negative should take the opportunity to develop an advantage counterplan file. Rather than engaging in theoretically tenuous PIC debates or murky process CP debates, the negative should simply draw competition from the affirmative’s solvency mechanism. Because guaranteeing the right to housing includes either regulation or assistance, the negative should theoretically be able to read either corresponding DA, and the propose the opposite form of legislative action. For example, if the plan calls to subsidize some form of housing, the negative could simply read a generic spending DA and a regulation CP. The literature surrounding housing policy and the inclination for low risk CP strategies points toward the viability of an advantage counterplan strategies.
Kritiks
Kritikal literature on housing policy is abundant and rich, so the following section will focus on construction musts and foundational veins of scholarship.
69 American Bar Association. 2013. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/homelessness_poverty/resolution117.authcheckdam.pd f
Champion Briefs 67 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
First, negative critics must examine the confluence of structural functions and identity politics. Most housing inequality is actuated through the assignment and valuation of individual identities as a means to determine allocation of institutional resources. This concept is both intuitive and a logical consequence of the rights law framing discussed at in section II (Literature
Review & Division of Ground). This means that links and alternatives, not matter their epistemic focus, need to explain the relationship between how power functions and how various forms of identity feed that function. Practically speaking, this means that links about the affirmatives performance of say gender is either a product or enabler of discriminatory housing policy. It also means alternatives should position how either individual forms of resistance influence housing authorities or how a structural analysis can account for individual agency.
Second, the negative should start by looking into topical literature about feminism, racial segregation, settler colonialism, biopolitics and capitalism. Feminist literature on housing will discuss how conceptualization of the home is patriarchal and rooted in the idea of a nuclear family. Segregation literature will discuss how liberalist reforms of housing only mask continuously exclusionary policies based on race (banking, policing, etc.) Settler colonialist literature will discuss who has the right to land or inhabitation given the establishment of history and modernity from the theft of indigenous territory. Biopolitical analysis will focus on how the concept of housing and rights confers sovereignty and territorializes social interactions. Anti-capitalist literature will discuss how the material politics of the American
Dream and accumulation are fed by normative conceptions of capital. It is important that debaters spend initial K research time familiarizing themselves with basic critical theories, how they position themselves to housing rights, and the basic premises of their analysis. This will go
Champion Briefs 68 Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung January/February 2017
a long way to developing both nuanced and accurate Kritikal debates too deep and varied to discuss here.
Good Luck!
Bailey Rung
About Bailey Rung
Bailey is a 2014 graduate of Blaine HS in Minneapolis, MN. Bailey spent his 4-year career competing in a variety of events, but his true passion lies in Congressional Debate because of its dynamic nature and challenging format. Some of his highlights include competing in and presiding semis at ToC and NSDA, as well as finals at Minneapple, Dowling, Blake, and Harvard. Additionally, Bailey has earned multiple leadership bowl awards and round robin placements. As a coach, Bailey has helped bring students to MSHSL States, ToC, and Nationals, and his lab students in Congressional Debate at CBI have made it to outrounds at Glenbrooks, Blake, Apple Valley, Harvard, Cal, and Nationals & ToC. Bailey is an assistant debate coach at Ridge High School, and is looking forward to a great year ahead. Bailey is currently a sophomore at Western Kentucky University, and competes actively in NFA-LD Debate and IEs. At the 2015 PKD Nationals, Bailey took 3rd in LD Debate, and was an Octofinalist at 2015 NFA Nationals. Bailey is excited to return to CBI this summer, and hopes to use his own competitive experiences to make an impact on the lives of attending students. He is currently an assistant coach for Ridge High School (NJ).
Champion Briefs 69 Champion Briefs March/April 2017 Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Framework Analysis Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson March/April 2017
Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
This past summer while selecting potential camp topics, to many of my students and colleagues’ frustration, I became a firm advocate of the housing topic for several reasons. While the March-April topic provides important debates on the status quo application of UN human rights and U.S. housing acts, it also incorporates questions surrounding property rights, discrimination, and government obligation. As contextualized by the United Nations’ “Right to
Adequate Housing,” the topic does not imply that the affirmative is responsible for producing solvency for indefinite housing for the U.S. homeless population, but rather the aff is burdened with demonstrating a right would reduce barriers and equalize opportunity. More specifically, contemporary debates on housing rights are better contextualized through legal frameworks that have taken steps to guarantee accessible, affordable, tenured, and habitable housing. Moreover, progressive interpretations of these doctrines defend a right to culturally adequate housing in the sense that one's home should provide an environment that allows for expression of culture and religion uninhibitedly. Conversely, strategic negatives on this topic criticized U.S. housing efforts for segregating and discriminatory biases, flawed rights discourse, and private property theft (from landlords and potential developers). All of these issues generate a topic set to provide insightful discussions surrounding the intersections of property rights, cultural heritage, community, and general social welfare.
I particularly enjoyed watching rounds on this topic, as contemporary court decisions provide a variety of social and economic conflicts demanding investigation and publicization.
Housing is an issue that affects every debater and inadequate housing is burden that can be
Champion Briefs 71 Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson March/April 2017
detrimental to one's educational success. But in the same respect, this topic provides an important opportunity to engage issues like racial discrimination in public housing, atonements for ‘gap periods’ of inadequate housing, and the enforcement and formation and defense of rent codes and boards. In these cases, court decisions and debates are often contextualized through a perceived tradeoff between affordable and accessible housing and a firm respect for private property and free market capitalism. In the San Jose example cited above, business groups and private housing official often argue that development stipulations involving affordable or public housing essentially take private property from rightful landowners. Mintz explains that “in particular, the industry argues the law is an unconstitutional ‘taking’ of property and that San
Jose has not established a connection between the building of new housing and the affordable housing problem.” Most of the debates I have seen on this topic follow this general paradigm; however, negatives may also take more progressive stances to align with more nuanced court decisions, such as Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive
Communities Project, which concluded that there is a disparate impact with regards to discriminatory segregation produced by public housing projects. In this case, the department was accused of allocating tax credits to properties in low income minority neighborhoods, with the intent of racially segregating low income populations. These sorts of indictments and criticisms are sufficient grounds for negatives that reject U.S. housing policy altogether in an effort to legitimize the guarantees made by existing legislation.
In academic and legal discussions of a right to housing, the most common argumentative frameworks are typically invocations of principles fairness or equity. Issues surrounding the application of the Fair Housing Act are currently the most legally debated and these invocations of fairness are well suited to frameworks defending the Rawlsian difference principle,
Champion Briefs 72 Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson March/April 2017
communitarianism, contractualism and social justice. In pursuit of an equitable society, discriminatory housing practices must be avoided, as an evaluation from the original position would yield an ethic that grants additional resources to exploited populations. The positive right to seek housing can also be contextualized through ethics which deontologically indict the hindrances associated with increases in rent costs and established resident exclusion. Tenant rights to ‘adequate’ property as an affirmative argument seems to be consistent with legal frameworks, contractual ethics, and other normative arguments centered on generating ethical obligations from governmental (and supreme court enforced) promises to fair and adequate housing.
These property rights arguments certainly flow both way; business owners, housing authorities, and land developers alike consistently argue that intervention by the government on behalf of the Fair Housing Act unfairly takes resources and private property from individuals.
These arguments make the claim that since policies do not directly segregate individuals or increase housing cost, developers do not owe compensation to established inhabitants. Similarly rent ceilings are argued to intervene on markets and inhibit landlords from seeking reasonable rent prices in sought after regions. These arguments are countered by claims that courts have upheld that tenant property rights to tenure and affordability preclude the property rights of exploitative landlords and developmental capitalism. In most cases, the property rights debates that I have judged on this topic collapse into issues of tenants’ rights v. free market economics.
For this reason, property rights NCs are typically better argued as a means of maintaining the rights of individual landowners and landlords that are in danger of losing their property as a result of government intervention. While there are indictments of the Texas housing decision, these arguments are usually a defense of landlord's’ rights to ‘inadvertently’ decline potential
Champion Briefs 73 Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson March/April 2017
renters as result of racial bias; however, these conservative defenses of property are not often persuasive and easily turnable. The negative’s more strategic framework toolbox could more strategically generate ends based arguments surrounding the racist, homophobic, transphobic practices perpetuated by federal housing projects. While the topic defines an actor, the negative can offer a variety of public policies and criticism in lieu of housing rights; intersectional policies such as development restrictions and property rights protect cultural and low income neighborhoods and serve as an ideal counter advocacy under affirmative policy making paradigms. Moreover, negatives may argue that according to United States’ legislation, we have a right to fair, adequate, and affordable housing; however, the enforcement of these policies and their efficacy ought to be demonstrated before an affirmative ballot is justified under a legal or rights based framework. Other academics have pushed this argument further to argue that fair housing policies have actually been contorted to work against minority communities in inner cities through protection of gentrification practices and associated rent increases, creating issues of cultural relativism, community, public space, and private property. This is consistent with criticisms of the general human rights discourse associated with a ‘right to housing’ as well as more specific criticism of neoliberal market practices.
While these legal initiatives are not perfect, they do operate as ideal case studies for affirmative advocacies as ends based solutions to current housing policy inefficiencies. While at camp I judged a variety of complex advocacies including defenses of group homes for homeless individuals dealing with mental illness, addiction, and intimate partner violence. These affirmatives take an ends-based policy approach to historic governmental shortcomings and force negatives to tailor criticisms of solvency by defending utilitarian impacts through a focused communitarian approach. The burden for the affirmative is defined through guaranteeing housing
Champion Briefs 74 Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson March/April 2017
to groups that do not currently have access or are not protected in the case of property rights disputes. For example, feminist and democratic property rights that allow survivors of intimate partner violence to remain in their homes, protect homeless children, or grant specialized protections to marginalized renters and landlords after natural disasters generates a strong moral and social justice argument that can be formulated as a plan text. Negative arguments on this topic as a general principle, while admittedly limited, are strong in the sense that most existing
United States housing acts and incentives has been historical disasters. Despite the recent
Supreme Court rulings discussed above, the core of impact debates on this topic will center on discussions of the institutional biases of public policy and housing rights discourse in the United
States. Even more importantly, a genealogical (historical) approach to this month's topic allows debaters to explore the settler-colonialism, indigenous disenfranchisement, sexism and racism involved in historic land ownership acts in the United States as warrants to reject housing rights discourse. Inversely, some affirmatives have reframed these claims to take up an ethic of public space and social welfare that obligates legal action against anti-homelessness laws (anti-loitering laws, public sleeping bans, and encampment destruction by police).
While negative debaters must be ready to adapt on all layers, this topic demands a particular versatility on the framework level. Departing from questions of free speech, this year’s
March-April topic incites ends based actualities surrounding the political and legislative intersections of public health, private property, and discrimination. From my experience, these debates have pushed affirmatives to adopt ends based advocacies, typically grounded in the defense of a specific right to housing for a specific marginalized or excluded community. Recent
Supreme Court decisions in Texas and New Jersey have supported these ethical judgements from a judicial and individual rights perspective consistent with ethics of fairness, social contract, and
Champion Briefs 75 Framework Analysis by Rory Jacobson March/April 2017
egalitarianism, and reaffirm that a disparate impact of any sort is unconstitutional. Negative responses to these claims have largely been contextualized by property rights claims on behalf of developers and landlords, criticisms of rights discourse (as restrictive, colonialist, and ineffective), and indictments of the United States housing policy on the grounds of previously unactualized policies. These negatives will be best suited to criticize the policy solvency mechanisms and institutional biases of U.S. Housing Policy that precipitate the racist, ableist, and anti-LGBT outcomes witness over the past several decades. Most important, debaters on both sides ought to familiar with the status of recent major court rulings on housing policy, academic literature on housing discrimination, and the social costs and individual costs associated with homelessness. From my experience at camp these factors all contribute to a consistent debate between affirmative that defend explicit ends based or legal obligations for a specified group of individuals and negatives that criticize the solvency, discriminatory rights discourse, and liberal treatment of property by affirmatives.
Champion Briefs 76 Champion Briefs March/April 2017 Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Evidence for the Affirmative AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Critical: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC
Woods argues that the blues tradition is one of the best modes of challenging neo- plantation politics, by challenging bonds of dependency and unfreedom that the system of white supremacy generates. He writes this in context of New Orleans, and argues for a cultural revolution of sorts where, “residents… return to their homes…New Orleans is a city whose people and their ancestors will call forth the dawn of a new world,” reclaiming sites of Black culture. This appears complementary to bell hooks’ argument concerning homeplace and its relationship to liberatory strategies.70 While this is just a single example of what more creative critical positions could entail, this topic has a lot of diversity.
Further, critical affs may also concern IPV and women’s right to housing. The Farha evidence in this brief argues that women’s right to housing is violated in the instance of IPV, and the government has an obligation to provide for the safety of survivors to seek an alternative place to be. These arguments can work best either under a structural violence framework or framing that borrows from some components of feminist philosophy (Ethics of Care, or a Role of the Ballot). The strategic benefits of this aff is that it may avoid a lot of the common disadvantages and kritiks that the negative may read. It is also important to keep in mind that some of the answers to this position may be recycled from prior topics, one main objection concerning the gendered instantiation of IPV.
Also included in this section are arguments that make cases against gentrification, and how the right to housing may be able to contest this trend. For a more in depth discussion of gentrification, see Yoakum’s topic analysis.
70 Hooks, Bell. Homeplace: A site of resistance. 1990.
Champion Briefs 78 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Current constitutional remedies for homelessness are inadequate for addressing the criminalization of the existence of homeless individuals.
Tars, Eric. "SYMPOSIUM ON BRINGING ECONOMIC & SOCIAL RIGHTS HOME: THE RIGHT TO ADEQUE HOUSING IN THE UNITED STA." 45 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 738. April 01, 2014. Web. February 02, 2017.
Despite the concerns expressed by the courts in Pottinger, Jones, and Kincaid that they cannot order substantial changes to other branches of government or expenditure of funds, n60 federal courts have employed broader remedies, particularly in the areas of education and prison reform. While the Pottinger court felt it would overstep its judicial authority if it were to assemble and allocate welfare-related resources, in numerous cases courts have fashioned remedies doing just that, even against the express will of other branches of government. n61 Such remedies, commonly called "structural" remedies, are directed to other branches of government to solve the underlying problem that creates the violation at issue. Consistent with the concerns noted by the Pottinger court, federalism and separation of powers concerns play a role in defining the boundaries of such remedies. In a number of opinions concerning lower courts' use of structural remedies, discussed below, the Supreme Court has provided principles indicating the proper targets and purposes of equitable relief. Typically, federal courts' remedial powers are limited by the nature of the constitutional violation at issue. Courts must avoid remedies which aim either to eliminate a condition that does not violate the Constitution or does not "directly flow" from such a violation. n62 Similarly, courts should typically extend their remedial powers over other institutions only so far as necessary to restore parties to the position they occupied before those institutions violated their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has expected lower courts to determine--even in cases dealing with [*751] unquantifiable values such as "quality of education"--the extent of governmental institutions' harm and to fashion remedies narrowly providing victims with exactly what they improperly lost. n63 Lower courts have interpreted the Supreme Court's approach as "reflect[ing] concern that the district court not go beyond the needs of the plaintiffs." n64 Where these principles apply, they prevent courts from addressing a city's unconstitutional criminalization of homelessness with structural remedies intended to address homelessness itself. Homelessness is not a direct effect of governments' unconstitutional criminalization of homeless individuals. Rather, widespread homelessness is a catalyst; governments violate the Constitution as they seek to drive unsightly poverty behind bars or beyond city limits. n65 Moreover, while homeless individuals unquestionably suffer a wide manner of harms when governments criminalize their innocent, inevitable behavior, n66 the loss of their home is not among them.
Champion Briefs 79 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Politicians and candidates need to start standing up for housing problems. The problem also requires grass roots pressures.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
No simple, quick answers here, but a few ending thoughts. We need to make politicians and candidates - for local, state and federal offices - speak to the housing problem and commit to effective ameliorative programs. And that in turn requires grassroots pressure. We need to emphasize housing's links to problems in the areas of health, education, income support, food, crime, employment, immigration, economic and community development. In doing so, we will create coalitions of social justice activists whose power will grow exponentially. Selective litigation may help as well. There are examples of social justice gains via lawsuits in other areas - ending legally sanctioned segregation in public schools, abolishing the poll tax, requiring due process hearings before government aid is terminated, facilitating receipt of welfare support by eliminating barriers based on interstate movement. The housing area is ripe for similar approaches, building on similar legal theories and laws governing public benefits, child welfare, mental health and other programs. We won't have a conservative/reactionary national administration forever, and the Congressional election results (in particular, having Maxine Waters as the incoming chair of the House subcommittee that deals with housing matters, Jack Reed or Chuck Schumer as her Senate counterpart) are a hopeful sign. It's time to think seriously about mounting a public and political campaign to make decent, affordable housing a right for all Americans.
Champion Briefs 80 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Gentrification and racial segregation are significant causal factors for dismantling housing rights.
Goetz, Edward. "Where Have All The Towers Gone? The Dismantling Of Public Housing In U.S. Cities." Journal of Urban Affairs, 33:3, 267-287. November 30, 2016. Web. February 06, 2017.
Several important findings stand out in Table 3. First, during the 1990s, crime and gentrification pressures are significant predictors of more aggressive dismantling of public housing systems. In cities where crime rates were higher, more public housing units were removed from the stock. Demolition and sale of public housing units was also greater in cities where the differential between public housing rents and market rate rents were the greatest. The greater the opportunity cost to developers and to the city of allowing public housing to stand, the more likely demolition and sale of that housing was to occur. These two models, as well as several others tested and not shown, indicate that where market rents are significantly higher than public housing rents, more demolition occurs. This suggests that market pressures to redevelop are an important determinant of the aggressiveness of local housing authorities in pursuing demolition and removal. Public housing removal during the 1990s is negatively associated with median home values, suggesting that controlling for other factors more public housing was demolished in lower-valued housing markets. None of other variables analyzed are statistically associated with the removal of public housing in these cities during the nineties. The quality of management, the degree of concentrated poverty, and racial variables were not statistically associated with public housing removal. The story of public housing demolition and sale is somewhat different after 2000. Though crime remains a significant predictor, and more demolition seems to be occurring in weaker housing markets (though in this case, it is vacancy rates, rather than home values that are associated with public housing removal), gentrification pressures are only marginally significant in these models. Several other variables, however, become more prominent and are statistically associated with the dismantling of public housing. The political variables that measure union strength and progressive policy are both statistically significant and negative, meaning that where union and progressive political strength are greater, fewer public housing units are lost. Furthermore, since 2000, public housing removal is occurring at greater rates in cities in which blacks are disproportionately represented among public housing residents. The greater the disparity in racial profile between public housing and the city’s population at large, the greater is the public housing demolition effort. Finally, the record of public housing removal since 2000 seems to be a continuation of the approaches used by cities during the 1990s, in that there is a positive statistical association between the percentage of the public housing stock removed in the 1990s and the removal of stock since 2000.
Champion Briefs 81 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Public housing demolition is a targeted racial strategy, capitalizing on low-income neighborhoods to turn into spaces ready for gentrification.
Goetz, Edward. "Where Have All The Towers Gone? The Dismantling Of Public Housing In U.S. Cities." Journal of Urban Affairs, 33:3, 267-287. November 30, 2016. Web. February 06, 2017.
The pattern of demolition and sale changes somewhat after 2000. The dismantling of public housing in the most recent time period has been greater in cities where blacks are a disproportionately high percentage of residents in public housing.9 To the extent that some cities have joined the bandwagon of public housing removal since 2000, or have taken greater prominence in the effort, they generally have been cities in which the racial profile of public housing residents is more distinctly African American in comparison to the city as a whole. This pattern is illustrated by the cities of Portland (Oregon) Tampa, and Nashville where the representation of African Americans within public housing is three times or more greater than within the city population as a whole. Portland did not remove any public housing units during the 1990s and took out 456 after 2000. Tampa removed 273 through 2000 and 1,948 units afterward. Nashville’s numbers were 280 and 1,528, respectively. In addition to shifting somewhat to a racial strategy after the 1990s, the removal of public housing since 2000 has mirrored political conditions within cities more closely. The dismantling of public housing in recent years has been more aggressively pursued in cities where union strength is weaker and in cities with a less extensive history of successful progressive policy efforts. This suggests that after the first wave of demolitions in the nineties, the issue of public housing demolition has become more politically determined, and that constituencies supportive of public housing have been able to limit its dismantling, or that the pursuit of public housing demolition in the first place is more limited to cities in which those constituencies are weaker. The evidence presented here also suggests that the negative manifestations of concentrated poverty are more influential in leading to public housing removal than the mere existence of pockets of poverty. Crime was significantly related to changes in the public housing stock while the extent of concentrated poverty in cities was not. This is true for both decades analyzed. Some of the findings generated in this study would be readily acknowledged by advocates of the radical transformation of public housing. For example, advocates might welcome the finding that public housing removal is correlated with higher levels of black/white racial disparity, since they see the old system of public housing as a major perpetrator of segregation and the mixed-income communities that typically replace old public housing as a means of integration (see Calthorpe, 2009; Cisneros, 2009; Polikoff, 2009). Advocates for public housing transformation also acknowledge that successful revitalization requires leveraging additional private sector investment and the upgrading of housing markets in the vicinity of public housing redevelopment or removal. The findings in this study identify only the conditions under which public housing has been removed, not the circumstances in which “successful” revitalization occurs. These findings indicate that, during the 1990s especially, the sell-off and demolition of public housing was pursued most heavily in those communities in which the real estate payoff of such action was the greatest.
Champion Briefs 82 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
A2 Gentrification Good: Their consumer choice model of gentrification is flawed because it fails to explain the factors behind preference.
Slater, Tom. "Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification And Displacement." City, 13:2-3, 292-311. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
New York City in the early 1980s exhibited a landscape where two processes that appeared to be polar opposites were happening simultaneously—abandonment and gentrification. To policy- makers, the former was painful, and nothing could be done to stop it short of triage. Gentrification, on the other hand, was highly desirable to policy-makers—a cure for abandonment, financed mostly by the private sector, and any displacement it causes would be trivial. For low-income communities, however, urban policy didn’t exactly offer much hope; the message was that you can either have abandonment or gentrification. Peter Marcuse took a knife to the soft underbelly of this false choice with a series of papers11 showing how abandonment and gentrification are neither opposites nor alternatives, but tightly connected (Marcuse, 1985a, 1985b, 1986). With typical conceptual precision, here is Marcuse (1985a) summarising his argument: ‘Abandonment drives some higher-income households out of the city, while it drives others to gentrifying areas close to downtown. Abandonment drives some lower-income households to adjacent areas, where pressures on housing and rents are increased. Gentrification attracts higherincome households from other areas in the city, reducing demand elsewhere, and increasing tendencies to abandonment. In addition, gentrification displaces lowerincome people—increasing pressures on housing and rents. Both abandonment and gentrification are linked directly to changes in the economic polarization of the population. A vicious circle is created in which the poor are continuously under pressure of displacement and the wealthy continuously seek to wall themselves within gentrified neighbourhoods. Far from a cure for abandonment, gentrification worsens the process.’ (p. 196) In its commendable simplicity, this account offers a devastating indictment of consumer sovereignty interpretations of gentrification and abandonment, which hold that the former is explained by rising demand for housing, the latter by falling demand. As Marcuse showed, ‘dual market’ housing demand arguments (gentrification in one market, abandonment in the other) are immediately derailed by the geographical fact that ‘the two phenomena often occur around the corner from each other’ (p. 197). Crucially, gentrification and abandonment were not explained as the result of individual household preferences, but rather as disturbing outcomes of the private and public institutional factors behind any preferences; quite simply, the state of the housing market and of public policy.
Champion Briefs 83 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
A2 Displacement is overblown: Empirical data confirms that displacement primarily targets low-income and marginalized communities, Freeman's study is flawed.
Slater, Tom. "Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification And Displacement." City, 13:2-3, 292-311. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
Whilst anchored in an analysis of New York City’s housing market in the 1980s, the huge literature on gentrification since the 1980s provides nothing obvious to suggest that these insights are not applicable elsewhere. Marcuse was arguing for a panoramic view of displacement where there is abandonment and gentrification: ‘The full impact of displacement must include consideration of all four forms.… It must include displacement from economic changes, physical changes, neighbourhood changes, and individual unit changes.’ (p. 208) He was acutely sensitive to the difficulties in measuring gentrification-induced displacement precisely, yet he was pointing out that it is essential to have conceptual clarity before research on displacement begins, and before any conclusions can be drawn. This is a masterclass for all gentrification researchers, but sadly it has been skipped by those whose work has made the headlines. Let us take exclusionary displacement as an example. The studies reported in the last section all maintained that lower household mobility rates among the poor in gentrifying neighbourhoods suggested that concerns about displacement are overblown, and in turn, suggests that poor people must appreciate the ‘improvements’ taking place in those neighbourhoods, and find ways to stay. Here is Marcuse’s (2005) response: ‘Do they have a “lower propensity to move” because they are finally getting decent neighborhood services (an odd phrase, incidentally, quantitatively considered: judging just by statistics, prison inmates have a “low propensity to move”); or are they not moving because the very process of gentrification reduces their possibilities of finding affordable housing, in a tight and tightening market?’ Freeman’s counter-charge (2008) is as follows: ‘It is unlikely that this [exclusionary displacement] would explain Freeman and Braconi’s results for it does not explain why mobility rates would be lower in gentrifying neighborhoods and those experiencing the most rapid rental inflation. Presumably, poor households in non-gentrifying neighborhoods would also be trapped [because so much of the city’s housing has gentrified] as well.’ (p. 187) The ‘poor households in non-gentrifying neighbourhoods’ to which Freeman refers represent the control group from the Freeman and Braconi (2004) study, and this group includes residents from some of the poorest parts of New York City (parts of Brooklyn and Queens with high poverty rates, plus all of the Bronx). Refuting exclusionary displacement by saying that this group would be unable to access gentrified housing too is an interesting defence, but not one sensitive to a litany of studies which document high levels of forced mobility for poor renter households (via evictions): ‘[R]enters, who have far less security of tenure than homeowners, are disproportionately represented among involuntary movers. And since, compared with homeowners, renters tend to be disproportionately minority and to have lower incomes, the problem of involuntary moves disproportionately affects the more vulnerable households in our society.’ (Hartman and
Champion Briefs 84 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Slater, Tom. "Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification And Displacement." City, 13:2-3, 292-311. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
Robinson, 2003, p. 467) So, as Newman and Wyly (2006) explain with respect to Freeman and Braconi’s control group: ‘We might expect that these residents move more frequently than those in other areas of the city, producing an artificially high standard to use as a comparison for displacement rates from gentrifying neighbourhoods.’ In addition, if gentrification theory teaches us anything, we should know by now that rent gaps are widest in non-gentrifying neighbourhoods (when the gap between the actual ground rent in the area and the ground rent that could be extracted were the area to undergo reinvestment becomes wide enough to allow that reinvestment to take place). Higher levels of mobility—especially evictions—are to be expected as landlords and developers realise that systematic disinvestment has reached a point where neighbourhoods can be redeveloped at substantial profit (see also Clark, 1987; Hammel, 1999). To put all this in clearer conceptual terms, direct displacement (last-resident and probably chain forms) is suffered by poor households in non-gentrifying neighbourhoods, and exclusionary displacement is suffered by poor households in gentrifying neighbourhoods, where low mobility is also to be expected.
Champion Briefs 85 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Gentrification has spillover effects for displacement- it is not a simple 1:1 relationship between gentrifiers and gentrifiable communities.
Slater, Tom. "Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification And Displacement." City, 13:2-3, 292-311. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
Gentrification without displacement … yet the social mix has changed, the area was (it no longer is) dominated by social rented housing tenants, and working men’s cafes and pubs have disappeared in favour of swish establishments? What Hamnett and Whitelegg are describing is Marcuse’s displacement pressure—so they have actually uncovered a clear example of gentrification with displacement. It is also a pity that they did not consult the recent scholarship on ‘indirect displacement’ in surrounding neighbourhoods as warehouse, industrial and office building conversions elevate rental and sales prices in ‘up and coming’ areas adjacent to those conversions (Davidson, 2007); furthermore, the work of Curran (2004, 2007) on industrial displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, reveals the futility of seeing gentrification-induced displacement as something that just affects occupied housing units. A final note regarding the wider applicability of Marcuse’s conceptual logic—his writings have much to offer anti- gentrification struggles. Exclusionary displacement is a potentially devastating political reaction to all those who have been pressing the view that low mobility among the poor in cities of the Global North is tantamount to the poor appreciating gentrification. When New Urbanist blowhard Andres Duany (2001) asks ‘So what’s all the fuss about over gentrification?’, ridiculing neighbourhood activism in the process, the Marcuse-inspired reply is that gentrification has removed so much affordable housing that poor people in gentrifying neighbourhoods are trapped. They do not in fact ‘appreciate’ gentrification, as it has severely limited their residential mobility. In cities in the Global South, slum clearances for mega-events (such as the Beijing Olympics) mean that ‘direct last-resident displacement’ and ‘direct chain displacement’ could not be more relevant to understanding the magnitude of dislocation,14 and the dynamics behind it. It is only by grasping the mechanisms that create different forms of displacement can any attempt to legitimise upheaval be effectively refuted.
Champion Briefs 86 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
A right to housing is a political demand that acts against the tides of gentrification and mass displacement of marginalized communities.
Slater, Tom. "Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification And Displacement." City, 13:2-3, 292-311. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
‘Eviction from the neighbourhood in which one was at home can be almost as disruptive of the meaning of life as the loss of a crucial relationship. Dispossession threatens the whole structure of attachments through which purposes are embodied, because these attachments cannot readily be re-established in an alien setting.’ (Peter Marris, 1986, p. 57) The debate over both gentrification and displacement is currently dominated by mainstream perspectives which rob the former of its historical meaning as the neighbourhood expression of class inequality, and gut the latter of its conceptual content by viewing low mobility among poor residents in gentrifying neighbourhoods as robust evidence that the displacement concerns of anti-gentrification activists are overblown. These perspectives, anchored in neoclassical urban economics and dressed up in methodological sophistication and nuanced reasoning, have proved highly seductive to journalists seeking sound bytes and neat statistics, and to urban policy-makers searching for a ‘reliable evidence base’ free from ‘anecdotes’. The task for critical urban studies is to reject the celebration of gentrification and the denial of displacement by reorienting the debate away from the positivist humdrum of independent variables drawn from survey categories (legitimised by appeals to ‘policy relevance’), and towards a sturdier analytical, political and moral framework which is rooted in housing as a question of social justice, and in particular, adequate and affordable housing as a human right and a basic human need. Housing is a fictitious financial asset (Harvey, 1985); its nonfictional status as shelter and as home is beyond question. ‘Home’ tends to evoke some of the most elevated human reactions: ‘A home exists where sentiment and space converge to afford attachment, stability, and a secure sense of personal control. It is an abiding place and a web of trustworthy connections, an anchor of identity and social life, the seat of intimacy and trust from which we pursue our emotional and material needs.’ (Segal and Baumohl, 1988, p. 259) Dispossessing or depriving someone of their home is therefore ‘a heinous act of injustice’ (D.M. Smith, 1994, p. 152), and one that makes the decade-long preoccupation with researching the consumer preferences of middle-class gentrifiers even more baffling. As grim as the current global financial implosion may seem (it was caused in large part by housing becoming the major vehicle of capital accumulation), there is a golden opportunity for critical urbanists amongst the detritus left in the wake of the mobilisation of state power in the extension of market rule (Tickell and Peck, 2003). In the USA, the widespread analogies with the Great Depression offer an unexpected opening, for in the 1930s the threat of massive unrest around issues of housing and unemployment led to moratoria on mortgage foreclosures, strong federal support for low-income homeownership (as opposed to private support) and the enactment of a nationwide public housing programme (Squires, 1992). So, the large-scale displacement caused by epidemic foreclosures and repossessions should not only be analysed as symptomatic of the fundamental flaws of three decades of economic deregulation; it should be analysed as part of a wider intellectual project to bring social justice back in to research on the housing question (and, of course, the urban question). This will not be straightforward. Careful scrutiny of recent issues of the journals Housing Studies and Urban Studies reveals them to have become instruments of the ‘growing heteronomy of urban research’ (Wacquant, 2008); that is,
Champion Briefs 87 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Slater, Tom. "Missing Marcuse: On Gentrification And Displacement." City, 13:2-3, 292-311. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
Champion Briefs 88 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
LGBT discrimination in housing is still legal.
Armstrong, Carlie. "SLOW PROGRESS: NEW FEDERAL RULES ONLY BEGIN TO ADDRESS HOUSING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENT." The Modern American. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
It had never occurred to me that Jake and Sean would feel they had to represent themselves as anything other than the loving couple I knew them to be. To my surprise, I learned that federal law does not protect LGBT individuals from housing discrimination.3 The Fair Housing Act, found in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,4 prohibits discrimination in the sale, lease, or rental of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. If a prospective tenant or buyer is a victim of discrimination on one or more of these bases, he or she can seek relief through a formal process that enjoys the full scope of federal protections including public representation in court and civil penalties up to $50,000.5 However, if a landlord or seller declines a particular individual based upon sexual orientation or gender identity, the list of remedies shrinks considerably.6 To address this resource vacuum, states and municipalities throughout the United States have instituted much-needed protections.7 In February 2012, Shaun Donovan, the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), announced new regulations to prevent those who own or operate HUD- funded housing from inquiring about an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identity.8 This article examines the methods by which advocates have attempted to curb discrimination against LGBT individuals in the housing context absent an overarching federal solution. This article will highlight the rules of one of the oldest and most robust municipal entities created to address discrimination, the New York City Human Rights Commission, as a counterpoint to the limited options available at the federal level. The federal government’s inability to keep pace with changing public perceptions is particularly apparent in this area.9 While HUD’s new rule is certainly an important step in the right direction, nothing short of amending the Fair Housing Act can truly ensure full equality.
Champion Briefs 89 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
LGBT homelessness is spurred by discrimination in housing.
Armstrong, Carlie. "SLOW PROGRESS: NEW FEDERAL RULES ONLY BEGIN TO ADDRESS HOUSING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENT." The Modern American. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
The lack of a coordinated federal response to housing discrimination against LGBT individuals generates widespread, detrimental consequences. When viewed in the context of youth, the failure to formalize protections against discrimination in the private sector poses a particular concern. A study conducted by The Williams Institute found that LGBT youth represent between 30% and 43% of those served in drop-in centers and street outreach programs.41 While numerous factors contribute to LGBT youth leaving their homes, family conflict is cited as the primary reason that teens become homeless.42 According to information obtained by The National Gay and Lesbian Institute, 50% of LGBT teens experience a negative reaction when they first come out to their families.43 The same study found that over a quarter of teens were kicked out by their parents;44 however, a more recent survey of agencies providing services to homeless youth estimated the actual number to be closer to 43%.45 Even more concerning are findings that over a third of the teens reported experiencing a violent assault in the home after coming out to family members.46 According to the Department of Health and Human Services, as a result of living in a society that stigmatizes and discriminates against homosexual individuals, LGBT youth face higher incidences of mental health issues.47 As such, homeless LGBT youth are especially vulnerable to victimization, substance abuse, and risky sexual behavior.48 In addition to the many dangers associated with living on the streets, advocates have expressed concern that LGBT youth may also experience discrimination from shelters run by faith-based organizations that are often better funded and more numerous than secular shelters.49 This issue is even more magnified for transgender youth due to segregation within the shelters based on sex at birth, which does not take into account the individual’s
Champion Briefs 90 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Landords either deny same-sex couples housing or increase rents as a means to exclude them from accessing housing.
Armstrong, Carlie. "SLOW PROGRESS: NEW FEDERAL RULES ONLY BEGIN TO ADDRESS HOUSING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENT." The Modern American. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
In states with no overarching laws preventing discrimination against LGBT applicants, landlords, sellers, and realtors may discriminate with impunity.53 A study conducted by four fair housing organizations in Michigan found significant disparities in the treatment of opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples when attempting to rent or purchase a home.54 Michigan lacks any statewide protections for LGBT individuals, although fourteen municipalities’ ordinances specifically protect LGBT individuals from discrimination.55 The project conducted 120 paired tests comparing the treatment of test teams posing as same-sex life partners to those posing as an opposite-sex married couple. The test team posing as a same-sex couple experienced disparate treatment in nearly 30% of the tests, while their opposite-sex counterparts did not.56 In the tests showing disparity in treatment, the testers perceived as a same-sex couple were quoted higher rent rates, experienced less encouragement to apply, and were charged application fees, while the testers posing as oppositesex married couples were not.57 Testers posing as same-sex couples also experienced behavior bordering on sexual harassment.58 While acknowledging that city ordinances are not as robust as federal or state laws, the study indicated that city ordinances play an important role in ending discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation.59 Like Jake and Sean, LGBT couples wishing to avoid discriminatory landlords may resort to lessthan-ideal options. It is worth noting that the state in which Jake lived, Colorado, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation;60 however, as evidenced by the Michigan study, city and state remedies often lack the teeth of a federal solution.61 Expounding on the Michigan study, a 2012 article noted that same sex couples are more likely than single applicants to face discrimination because their sexual orientation is more immediately apparent to potential landlords or sellers.62 The potential impact of such discrimination is significant when viewed together with recent data obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census showing over 646,000 same-sex couple households throughout the United States.63 Information obtained from the Census further indicated that same-sex couples were identified in 93% of all United States counties.64 Given that over half the states offer no protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the realm of housing, this data highlights the number of couples and individuals who are living in areas without any federal, state, or even municipal protection.
Champion Briefs 91 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
The Blues is a tradition that breaks down neoplantation politics and offers a radical consciousness to marginalized black bodies.
Woods, Clyde. "Do You Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans?: Katrina, Trap Economics, And The Rebirth Of The Blue." American Quarterly Vol 57 No 4. December 01, 2005. Web. February 07, 2017.
Katrina not only revealed ongoing racial projects and practices; it [and] revealed them at the pinnacle of a long half-century march against the New Deal, the Freedom Movement, the War on Poverty, and the Poor People’s Campaign. It transformed a relatively peaceful burial of the welfare state by setting the stage for ugly racial conflicts from one end of the country to the other. The arrival of desperate African Americans in large towns and small cities has often been accompanied by both an outpouring of sympathy and surging gun sales. To systematically understand the origins, form, and direction of this atavistic upsurge, it is necessary to choose an ontological and epistemological approach to this crisis that does not further marginalize working-class African American[s] voices or blind their boundless social vision. The blues tradition of investigation and interpretation is one of the central institutions of African American life. It is a newly indigenous knowledge system that has been used repeatedly by multiple generations of working-class African Americans to organize communities of consciousness. The blues began as a unique intellectual movement that emerged among desperate African American communities in the midst of the ashes of the Civil War, Emancipation, and the overthrow of Reconstruction. It was used to confront the daily efforts of plantation powers to erase African American leadership and the memory of social progress. It produced a new type of African American intellectual through a system of teachers, professors, apprentices, and schools. The blues and its extensions are actively engaged in providing intellectually brutal confrontations with the “truths” of working-class African American life. It draws on African American musical practices, folklore, and spirituality to reorganize and give a new voice to working-class communities facing severe fragmentation. This tradition has been engaged in the production and teaching of African American history from its inception. Many of the subsequent African American cultural traditions can be viewed as movements designed to revitalize the blues ethic of social justice. For Willie Dixon, the blues is also a form of social realism upon which African American survival is predicated: “Had it not been for the blues, the black man wouldn’t have been able to survive through all the humiliations and all the various things going on in America…he had nothing to fight with but the blues…the blues is the facts of life.”10 In New Orleans, experimentation by the organic intellectual, community leader, and trumpet player Buddy Bolden with the blues became known as jazz. The essential relationship between the blues, jazz, and African American dignity was expressed by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his address to the 1964 Berlin Jazz Festival: Jazz speaks for life. The Blues tell the story of life’s difficulties, and if you think for a moment, you will realize that they take the hardest realities of life and put them into music, only to come out with some new hope or sense of triumph. This is triumphant music. And now, Jazz is exported to the world. For in the particular struggle of the Negro in America there is something akin to the universal struggle of
Champion Briefs 92 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Woods, Clyde. "Do You Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans?: Katrina, Trap Economics, And The Rebirth Of The Blue." American Quarterly Vol 57 No 4. December 01, 2005. Web. February 07, 2017.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 93 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Abstraction is the mode of the normalization of white supremacy- embrace an alternative epistemological position.
Woods, Clyde. "Do You Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans?: Katrina, Trap Economics, And The Rebirth Of The Blue." American Quarterly Vol 57 No 4. December 01, 2005. Web. February 07, 2017.
When compared to the triumphalism often associated with civil rights historiography, the blues tradition provides one of the few epistemologies capable of grasping the origins, meaning, and scope of neoplantation movement that has come to dominate national politics. It has never stopped asking what happened to the White Citizens Council’s massive resistance movement, launched out of the Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana Deltas in 1954 to defeat Brown v. Board of Education and the civil rights movement as a whole. It led southerners opposed to civil rights into the Republican Party. A 1962 article in the Louisville Courier Journal heralded the birth of “Racial Republicanism.” “The truth is that this Republican upsurge, if that is the word, owes much of its momentum to the very thing that has kept the South in one-party bondage for nearly a century—an unreasoning passion to maintain ‘white supremacy.’” The Southern Strategy of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns crafted a southern, western, and northern national compact based on white economic and racial fears. In 1981, Lee Atwater explained the movement’s rhetorical evolution as a series of “black magic” spells: You start out in 1954 by saying [racial slurs], “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968, you can’t say “nigger,” that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced bussing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re taking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites … [It] is getting that abstract that coded that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or another. You follow me.17 Before becoming the Republican National Committee chair, Atwater provoked a national racial panic to secure the election of George H. W. Bush as president in 1988. The reborn White Citizens Council, the Council of Conservative Citizens, counts among its allies leading Mississippi politicians: U.S. Senator Trent Lott, former Governor Kirk Fordice, and current governor Harley Barbour. The organization also noted that Louisiana “ultra- conservative David Vitter won 50% of the vote to win the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Democrat John Breaux. Vitter advanced to the senate from a congressional seat representing the suburban New Orleans district that once elected David Duke to the statehouse.”18 Suburban New Orleans has also given the world David Duke, a national Ku Klux Klan leader, who became a Republican state legislator. He then went on to receive 60 percent of the white vote in his losing bid for the U.S. Senate in 1990 and 55 percent of the white vote in his unsuccessful bid for governor in 1991. After having received an honorary doctorate from a university in Ukraine, Dr. Duke now spreads his message of white anxiety and African American depravity globally.19 It is within these confines that decisions about relief and the survival of black communities in New Orleans and Mississippi are being made.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 94 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
The rights based approach articulates a two-pronged shift that deconstructs women's subordinate status in relation to housing.
Farha, Leilani. "Is There A Women In The House? Women And The Right To Adequate Housing." A Resource Guide to Women’s International Human Rights. February 10, 1998. Web. February 07, 2017.
Given the interconnectedness of some women with housing, to call for the disassociation of all women from the home may be a culturally insensitive move, the practical effects of which might prove more devastating than helpful for women and their families. Rather than regarding the home necessarily as a site of oppression - which might be regarded as a distinctly western feminist approach - given the right ideological framework, one where women are no longer viewed as members of men’s households and thus under male control, the home might in fact become the potential site of women’s autonomy, independence and freedom. And so, instead of disassociating women from housing perhaps women should move to reconstruct or continue to build upon that association. Some of the women and human settlement/shelter literature complements this suggestion. Caroline Moser, for example, argues that social relations are constructed within the household and that this results in differential experiences of housing for housing needs. Moser defines these particular needs - distinct from men’s - as both “practical” and “strategic”. She argues that practical needs are those which arise from the concrete conditions of women’s positioning, by virtue of their gender, within the sexual division of labour. Within these positions, needs are formulated by women themselves in response to the living conditions which they face daily. For example, clean water supply, adequate food or community day care facilities are identified as the practical gender needs of low income women. In other words, practical needs are those that arise out of women’s everyday realities and if addressed do not necessarily alter the structure of social relations between men and the analysis of women’s subordination. To adequately answer those needs requires the development of an alternative organization of society that transforms the current structure and nature of relationships between men and women. Depending on the particular socio-political context, strategic gender needs may include the abolition of the sexual division of labour, the alleviation of the burden of domestic labour and child care, and the removal of institutional forms of discrimination by creating equal right to land ownership or to access to credit. Strategic gender needs are those needs that result from systemic disparities and that must be answered through Moser’s distinction between practical and strategic housing needs suggests that an improvement in women’s relationship to housing requires a two-pronged approach whereby activists must attempt to satisfy women’s practical or immediate housing needs while concurrently working to erode the structural framework that has caused the sexual division of labour and women’s oppression within the home. As such, Moser’s work clarifies that while women’s everyday lives within the home and their general relationship to housing is undoubtedly experienced as oppressive, at the root of this oppression is the structural framework that defines the association between women and housing, and not the association per se. This rights based approach to housing can take up Moser’s challenge to address women’s everyday practical housing needs while simultaneously deconstructing the framework that has led to women’s subordinate status in and outside of the home.
Champion Briefs 95 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Understanding housing as a social and political right uniquely challenges neoliberalism.
Farha, Leilani. "Is There A Women In The House? Women And The Right To Adequate Housing." A Resource Guide to Women’s International Human Rights. February 10, 1998. Web. February 07, 2017.
Despite these pitfalls, strong arguments can be made to support a rights approach to women and housing and the establishment of housing as a women’s right. As an economic and social right, the right to housing confronts traditional liberalism head-on as it is progressive and forward- restore to the claimant something they have lost or were forced to give away, economic and social rights are claimed not only to restore but also to provide. Moreover, instead of drawing protective boundaries isolating individuals from the collective, the right to housing embraces the connection between individuals and groups. Not only does the right to housing address the provision of accommodation to an individual, it is also a social right that recognizes the group nature of disadvantage and discrimination and as such, it has the potential to support social movements initiated by disadvantaged groups such as pavement dwellers, indigenous Moreover, feminist scholars and activists working in the area of international law have argued persuasively that “the major forms of oppression of women operate within the economic, social and cultural realms”20 and hence logically they have particular relevance to women.
Champion Briefs 96 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
A2 General Principle T - The right to housing is legally interpreted to be a key right defined in context of the needs of disadvantaged citizens.
Farha, Leilani. "Is There A Women In The House? Women And The Right To Adequate Housing." A Resource Guide to Women’s International Human Rights. February 10, 1998. Web. February 07, 2017.
Despite the complexity that results from the fact that the right to housing appears to incorporate and invoke other fundamental human rights, the Committee has developed a working definition legal interpretation of the right to adequate housing to date. Beyond delineating seven core principles that attach to the right to housing, the Committee stipulates that the right to housing should not be construed narrowly to mean merely the right to have a roof over one’s head. Instead, the Committee suggests that the right to live somewhere in “security, peace and dignity” constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of the right to housing. Recognizing that disadvantaged groups are more likely to be subject to housing rights violations, the Committee also stresses that the focus of the right to adequate housing must be on those social groups living in unfavourable conditions.
Champion Briefs 97 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Exclusionary housing policies that discriminate against felons creates a significant barrier for re-entry.
Carey, Corinne. "ARTICLE: NO SECOND CHANCE: PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS DENIED ACCESS TO PUBLIC HOUSING." 36 U. Tol. L. Rev. 545. November 01, 2004. Web. February 07, 2017.
Over six-hundred-fifty thousand people per year are expected to return home from America's prisons and jails in the coming years. n30 The consequence of America's overreliance on incarceration during the past two decades, these numbers have shocked the country into paying increased attention to ensuring that the return from prison to the free world - a process now known as reentry - is successful. Politicians have for decades enhanced their "tough on crime" credentials by creating laws and policies that impose adverse collateral consequences on many categories of those with criminal records. n31 According to the New York-based Legal Action Center "people with criminal records seeking reentry [now] face a daunting array of counterproductive, debilitating and unreasonable roadblocks in almost every important aspect of life." n32 These include restrictions on voting rights, [*552] housing, employment, and government welfare assistance. No matter how exemplary their subsequent lives, people who have a criminal record bear a modern-age "scarlet letter," or a new civil identity that they cannot shed. n33 They will constantly confront questions about their criminal records on every application - from applications for welfare or for a job at a fast food restaurant, to a volunteer dog-catcher position at the SPCA, and even a box on the application to join a PTA. n34 Some attention is appropriately and finally being paid to the needs of many returning prisoners for supportive, transitional services. But there has been relatively little attention so far to the insurmountable barriers created by "collateral consequences" that threaten successful reentry. Many of these barriers are the result of public laws, and they directly restrict the rights and opportunities of those with criminal records. Exclusionary housing policies constitute one of the most significant barriers to reentry. People leaving prison and jail are typically among Americans with the most dire housing needs. For them, publicly supported housing is the only realistic option for safe and stable places to live. Excluded from public housing, they often end up swelling the ranks of the homeless, become inhabitants of grimy and unsafe transient hotels and motels, or crowd into the homes of relatives and friends. None of these options is conducive to the development of stable, productive lives for former prisoners or their children. HUD's current exclusionary policies and those of local PHAs ignore the changing landscape of the poor in the U.S. As the number of people with criminal records continues to soar, so their proportion among the impoverished in the United States grows. Policies that exclude them from housing thus have the effect of excluding an ever growing number of those in need. As one tenant advocate in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania told us: "No one's in more need than ex-offenders. That's what this housing is for. I understand that originally it was for women and children and vets, but as times change, our federal programs need to recognize who's needy in our society." Another housing advocate in Austin, Texas said:
Champion Briefs 98 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
Carey, Corinne. "ARTICLE: NO SECOND CHANCE: PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS DENIED ACCESS TO PUBLIC HOUSING." 36 U. Tol. L. Rev. 545. November 01, 2004. Web. February 07, 2017.
They have a responsibility for tenants, but also the responsibility to be the housing of last resort. They receive large sums of federal money to be the bottom-line safety net of housing for folks out there. The Housing Authority is that safety net. That's why they can get all those grants. If it wasn't the intention to make sure that the safety net is there, why give them all that money?... If all they want to do is cream the population and take the best, why are they getting all that money? … Housing authorities used to be the ones that would give people a second chance. [*553] The impact of federal and local exclusionary policies is not limited to public housing. Increasingly, private landlords are following the lead of public housing and screening people for criminal histories. Federal law allows owners of private housing to decline to rent to those who have been deemed eligible and awarded a voucher by a PHA. But housing advocates also report that landlords are refusing to rent to prospective tenants in the private market because of their criminal records. "Once the housing authority did it, everybody started to do it," one reentry advocate said. "Any housing complex, any apartment, if you have an "x,' they'll deny you."
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 99 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
The U.S. must enforce a right to housing for those with criminal records by removing arbitrary exclusionary rules that prevent access.
Carey, Corinne. "ARTICLE: NO SECOND CHANCE: PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS DENIED ACCESS TO PUBLIC HOUSING." 36 U. Tol. L. Rev. 545. November 01, 2004. Web. February 07, 2017.
By singling out whole classes of people for exclusion - in some cases by law; in others, by overly rigid application of screening criteria - public housing exclusionary policies violate the rights of individuals who do not actually pose a risk but who are nonetheless denied access. These policies are also discriminatory. Racial and ethnic minorities suffer disproportionately from exclusionary housing policies because of their overrepresentation among those who experience arrest and prosecution, those who currently live in poverty, and those who seek public housing. The United States should abandon "one strike" policies, reject all automatic federal exclusions, and prohibit local housing authorities from establishing their own. PHAs should be required to undertake individualized and meaningful assessments of each applicant to ascertain whether they pose a risk to the safety, health, and welfare of existing tenants. The United States must recognize that all its residents - even those who may not be appropriate for traditional public housing because of the risks they pose - have a right to decent and affordable housing. Policies that arbitrarily exclude people from public housing do not advance public safety - they undermine it. Denying housing to those with the fewest options threatens the health and safety of people with criminal records and, indeed, the safety of entire communities. Exclusionary policies may seem an appropriate way to distribute scarce public housing resources, and because criminal offenders are not a powerful political constituency locally or nationally, these policies are not subject to political challenge. But the right to housing should not be conditioned on public appeal or political power. With increasing numbers of people - now in the hundreds of thousands each year - returning to their communities after periods of incarceration, federal, state, and local governments are finally beginning to support reentry programs. But even the most well-designed reentry programs will fail unless political leaders and the public acknowledge the collateral consequences that follow a criminal record and dismantle the barriers to reentry that have been erected by law and policy. Chief among these, as documented in this report, are the barriers to housing.
Champion Briefs 100 AFF: Housing Key to Marginalized Communities AC Mar/Apr 17
The US should adopt more stringent anti-discrimination standards in order to protect homeless LGBT youth.
Hunter, Ernst. "WHAT." 46 Fam. Ct. Rev. 543. July 01, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
One necessary LGBT-specific policy change is the addition of gender expression and sexual orientation to the list of categories upon which youth shelters may not discriminate in the provision of services. n93 The New York State Office of Children and Family Services has promulgated no such regulation applying to shelters housing homeless youth aged sixteen to twenty. n94 The New York City Human Rights Law does prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation n95 and gender expression. n96 However, it exempts religious charities from this requirement. n97 Because Manhattan's largest homeless youth housing programs are run by a Catholic charity, n98 which may claim that opting out of this policy is necessary to promote Catholic principles; this exception leaves a potentially damaging deficiency in the protections provided to LGBT youth. The California Administrative Code currently prohibits discrimination in all state-supported programs on the basis of sexual orientation. n99 This policy should be expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender expression also. Discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of gender expression is already prohibited in foster care in California. n100 Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of any public service is also prohibited in California. n101 [*550] The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services regulations currently prohibit discrimination against persons under eighteen years old in social service housing programs on the basis of race with respect to admissions to a program. n102 The Department has no similar policy for sexual orientation or gender expression. n103 The Department's authority should be expanded to cover programs housing homeless youth twenty-one years old and under. Additionally, its regulations should be expanded to include discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender expression and to include discrimination in the provision of any service. Although a survey of those other states that have not yet adopted such anti-discrimination laws is beyond the scope of this Note, laws prohibiting discrimination in the provision of homeless youth housing services on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity need to be adopted nationally in order to adequately protect these youth.
Champion Briefs 101 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
Economic Benefits AC
Economic arguments are going to be a big part of both sides of this topic. Luckily for the affirmative, the majority of the topic literature holds that it is actually cheaper to house the homeless then to maintain the status quo. There is a decent amount of literature that the negative can read too about how expensive it would be to provide housing to everyone.
The argument on the affirmative side is very simple: it is cheaper to house the homeless than it is to maintain homelessness. The evidence behind this argument follows that people that are homeless require high amounts of social services: housing, medical care, emergency services etc. By providing people housing you cut down on external costs and are just left with housing costs. There is a lot of empirical evidence about programs all around the country being used to reduce cost. One of the biggest programs is in Utah, where chronic homelessness was reduced directly. A lot of the evidence in here focuses on smaller local policies and their effects.
This argument can be executed as a whole case, however, it would likely be more beneficial to run it as an advantage under a utilitarian or consequentialist framework. All the cards from this section can be combined with the advantages under the ‘homelessness advantages’ to make a full utilitarian case. Most of these cards can also be used as turns to the econ DA, Universal Base Income CP or other utilitarian based negative positions. If you are debating on the local circuit this argument, as most economic arguments are, should be fairly convincing to local judges especially when the reasons why it is cheaper to house homeless people is explained.
Champion Briefs 102 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
Cheaper to house homeless than to allow them to remain homeless.
Carrier , Scott. "Room For Improvement." Mother Jones. March 01, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
To understand how the state did that it helps to know that homeless-service advocates roughly divide their clients into two groups: those who will be homeless for only a few weeks or a couple of months, and those who are "chronically homeless," meaning they have been without a place to live for more than a year, and have other problems—mental illness or substance abuse or other debilitating damage. The vast majority, 85 percent, of the nation's estimated 580,000 homeless are of the temporary variety, mainly men but also women and whole families who spend relatively short periods of time sleeping in shelters or cars, then get their lives together and, despite an economy increasingly stacked against them, find a place to live, somehow. However, the remaining 15 percent, the chronically homeless, fill up the shelters night after night and spend a lot of time in emergency rooms and jails. This is expensive—costing between $30,000 and $50,000 per person per year according to the Interagency Council on Homelessness. And there are a few people in every city, like Reno's infamous "Million-Dollar Murray," who really bust the bank. So in recent years, both local and federal efforts to solve the homelessness epidemic have concentrated on the chronic population, currently about 84,000 nationwide.
Champion Briefs 103 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
You could house everyone with a $600,000 home for the cost it takes to make a fighter jet.
Couche , Robbie. "Cost Of Military Jet Could House Every Homeless Person In U.S. With $600,000 Home." Huffington Post. July 11, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
It’s no news that a large portion of our federal tax dollars goes towards defense spending. But your jaw might drop at the cost of the newest jet manufactured by the U.S. military, and just how much good could have been achieved domestically with the same price tag. The $400 billion program to create a fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, which, as The Hill points out, is seven years behind schedule and chronically plagued with misfortunes and incompetencies, could have housed every homeless person in the U.S. with a $600,000 home. The staggering fact, configured by Think Progress, is just one of several figures the news source put into perspective for taxpayers. For example, the amount spent per year to build the F-35 jets could easily fulfill a $16.7 billion request by the United Nations Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs to save countless lives from preventable causes around the world — and then have enough left over to fund UNICEF’s budget request, too. The full cost of the jets program could also fund the National School Lunch Program, which feeds about 31 million students annually, for the next 24 years. The mind-boggling cost for a fleet of F-35 jets exemplifies what Steven Conn would consider a military budget that doesn’t have much of a positive impact on everyday Americans. “Spending our taxes on the military doesn’t yield much to make our lives or our communities better,” Conn, a professor and Director of the Public History Program at Ohio State University, wrote on a HuffPost blog in April. “Big weapons systems and overseas military installations, to say nothing of feckless military adventures in Vietnam or Iraq, have done very little to fix our roads, improve our kids’ education, or push the boundaries of medical research.”
Champion Briefs 104 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
It is cheaper to house the homeless than to allow them to be homeless- study out of NC finds.
Miles , Kathleen. "Housing The Homeless Not Only Saves Lives — It’s Actually Cheaper Than Doing Nothing." Huffington Post. March 25, 2014. Web. February 07, 2017.
It’s cheaper to give homeless men and women a permanent place to live than to leave them on the streets. That’s according to a study of an apartment complex for formerly homeless people in Charlotte, N.C., that found drastic savings on health care costs and incarceration. Moore Place houses 85 chronically homeless adults, and was the subject of a study by the University of North Carolina Charlotte released on Monday. The study found that, in its first year, Moore Place tenants saved $1.8 million in health care costs, with 447 fewer emergency room visits (a 78 percent reduction) and 372 fewer days in the hospital (a 79 percent reduction). The tenants also spent 84 percent fewer days in jail, with a 78 percent drop in arrests. The reduction is largely due to a decrease in crimes related to homelessness, such as trespassing, loitering, public urination, begging and public consumption of alcohol, according to Caroline Chambre, director the Urban Ministry Center’s HousingWorks, the main force behind Moore Place.
Champion Briefs 105 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
New Mexico study finds it significantly cheaper to house the homeless.
Gonzales, Carolyn. "UNM Study Reveals Cost Benefits In Housing The Homeless." University of New Mexico. June 05, 2014. Web. February 07, 2017.
The University of New Mexico Institute for Social Research conducted a study for the City of Albuquerque on the cost and benefits of housing the homeless in the city. Results of the Albuquerque Heading Home Initiative reveal that it is cost effective to house the homeless. In a press conference touting the success of Albuquerque Heading Home, Mayor Richard Berry noted that the costs of homelessness are both fiscal and in human suffering that impacts the entire community. He credited UNM and Paul Guerin, ISR researcher, for providing clear evidence that housing the homeless does save money. “In three years, we have now housed 312 of the chronically homeless and most vulnerable in our community…The research shows that we save $3.2 million by housing the homeless,” Berry said. Guerin, a senior research scientist III, has worked at ISR since 1992 and teaches part time in sociology. “The study focused on a cost analysis that compared a variety of different services for one year before the study group members entered the Heading Home Initiative to the cost after they had been in the program for a similar time frame,” he said. In preparing for the study, the researchers looked broadly at homelessness. National data shows that in a single night in January 2012, more than 633,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. The estimate for those who are chronically homeless is 200,000 – and they have health and behavioral health problems. At least 40 percent have substance abuse issues, with 25 percent having a physical disability and 20 percent having serious mental illnesses.
Champion Briefs 106 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
Its cheaper to house the homeless because they end up using less social services like the criminal justice system.
Gonzales, Carolyn. "UNM Study Reveals Cost Benefits In Housing The Homeless." University of New Mexico. June 05, 2014. Web. February 07, 2017.
Homeless people tend to be high users of community services, such as emergency rooms and inpatient and outpatient treatment services. Within communities, criminal justice systems are also impacted by homelessness. Housing the homeless reduces the burden on the jail. Many homeless who are picked up are arrested for minor violations, such as shoplifting, public urination, disorderly conduct or drug/alcohol use, Guerin said “this is not cost effective. People who should be in jail are those we are afraid of – kidnappers, murderers, robbers and drug traffickers. We should put people in jail that we’re afraid of, not those we are angry at,” he said. They also use more acute care for preventable conditions made worse by homelessness.
Champion Briefs 107 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
Dependence on emergency services drops after providing housing.
Garrett, Daniel G. "The Business Case For Ending Homelessness: Having A Home Improves Health, Reduces Healthcare Utiliza." Am Health Drug Benefits. January 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
As people become stabilized in housing, their dependence on emergency services drops, and their health outcomes improve significantly. Consider the following facts on the cost of healthcare for the homeless: The majority of homeless people lack health insurance, a public provision for healthcare, or a primary care physician2,3 Almost 33% of all visits to the emergency department are made by chronically homeless people. Emergency departments are not equipped to meet the psychosocial needs of homeless patients and do not have the capacity to assist them with housing, substance abuse treatment, or mental healthcare2,3 Homeless people visit the emergency department an average of 5 times annually, and the most frequent users visit them weekly. Each visit costs $3700, amounting to $18,500 spent annually for the average user and up to $44,400 for the most frequent users2,3 On average, homeless people spend 3 nights per visit in the hospital, which can cost more than $90002 According to Margot Kushel, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, “Homeless people have higher rates of chronic health problems than the general or poverty population. This takes the form of higher rates of illnesses such as high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, lung diseases like asthma and chronic bronchitis, and HIV disease”4 As many as 80% of emergency department visits made by people struggling with homelessness are for illnesses that could have been addressed through preventive care.2
Champion Briefs 108 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
Healthcare is a significant cost associated with homelessness, housing solves this.
Garrett, Daniel G. "The Business Case For Ending Homelessness: Having A Home Improves Health, Reduces Healthcare Utiliza." Am Health Drug Benefits. January 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
The answer to reducing healthcare costs for people who are homeless is supportive housing5: The provision of housing to homeless residents decreases by nearly 61% the number of visits they make to emergency departments Providing permanent supportive housing to the homeless community saves the taxpayer money: Healthcare costs are reduced by 59% Emergency depatment costs are decreased by 61% The number of general inpatient hospitalizations is decreased by 77% For members of the community who need assistance resolving their medical and/or psychosocial problems, permanent supportive housing is often the only successful approach to ending homelessness Safe and permanent housing can give residents the stability they need to organize their lives and maintain their health. The National Coalition for the Homeless points out that, “Homelessness and healthcare are intimately interwoven. Poor health is both a cause and a result of homelessness. The National Healthcare for the Homeless Council (2008) estimates that 70% of Healthcare for the Homeless clients do not have health insurance. Moreover, approximately 14% of people treated by homeless healthcare programs are children under the age of 15.”6 When homeless people are placed in supportive housing, many are qualified for healthcare coverage. More important, people who have housing are less apt to need healthcare services as often as those who have no housing, as noted above.5 Recently, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) announced grants to Asheville and 19 other communities to benefit homeless people.7 The Cooperative Agreements to Benefit Homeless Individuals provide funding to offer support and housing for homeless people and those with mental and substance use disorders.7 Because of their illness, these people have largely been excluded from the current healthcare system and are, therefore, relying on public “safety net” programs. SAMHSA points out that “Last year alone approximately 20 million people who needed substance abuse treatment did not receive it and an estimated 10.6 million adults reported an unmet need for mental healthcare. As a result the health and wellness of the individual is jeopardized and the unnecessary costs to society ripple across America's communities, schools, businesses, prisons and jails, and healthcare delivery systems.”8 The expansion of programs being supported by SAMHSA is a key to housing many people who are homeless and to significantly reducing the medical costs of these people to the healthcare system. For people with chronic health conditions, Project IMPACT Diabetes offers an example of how 25 communities nationwide are coming together to improve health outcomes for those with chronic conditions who are homeless and uninsured.9 When I became a downtown property owner, I had some of the misperceptions that many people (including those involved in healthcare) have about people who are homeless.10 Since I have become involved in groups who work to address homelessness, those myths have been dispelled for me, by learning about what causes homelessness, and how we can end it and reduce healthcare utilization and cost. A common myth is that homeless people move to communities such as Asheville and Buncombe County because of our progressive social services. In fact, 71% of the people experiencing
Champion Briefs 109 AFF: Economic Benefits AC March/April 2017
Garrett, Daniel G. "The Business Case For Ending Homelessness: Having A Home Improves Health, Reduces Healthcare Utiliza." Am Health Drug Benefits. January 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 110 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Homelessness Advantages AC
The disadvantages of homelessness are the first arguments that come to mind when one thinks ‘right to housing’. This section could easily make up a full case as you can pull multiple types of impacts from it. There are impacts related to crime, poverty, health, violence etc. that would make great arguments under any consequentially framed case. I believe that traditional judges will be particularly susceptible to these arguments because they pull on the real world issues that a lot of people are more familiar with as opposed to the more philosophy dense side of the ‘rights’ debate.
Many of the negative arguments are likely to center around how public housing leads to harms against specific groups of people. This section of the briefs can be used as turns to show that homelessness harms those specific groups as well. This section includes cards that point to specific groups of people that are more likely to be targets of homelessness, this includes: veterans, children, marginalized communities etc.
One fantastic thing about this set of cards is that they contain both very analytical as well as statistical language. This makes for a balanced debate and allows you to easily adapt the evidence to the types of judges you will be getting. The breadth of types of evidence in this section also make for great evidence comparison debates as you likely can find warrants explicitly responsive to those of your opponent. My suggestion would be to save some of the cards that could act as turns to common negatives for just that, turns, when constructing contentions use arguments that are uniquely affirmative ground and thus you can minimize the evidence comparison debates you get into.
Champion Briefs 111 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Home can fit multiple interpretations including lodging where the private person can develop-I law shows.
Kucs , Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017. <>.
In Moreno Gómez v. Spain, the ECHR developed the notion of home regarding privacy: «the home is the place, the physically defined area, where private and family life develops». 29 Thus –according to Antoine Buyse– function, not form, is decisive in establishing whether a certain place can be qualified as home. 30 The concept of «home» thus includes existing 31 homes, land, 32 but not a home region. 33 It is not limited to traditional residences and includes, inter alia, caravans and other non-fixed lodgings, 34 second homes or holiday homes, 35 business premises in the absence of a clear distinction between one’s office and private residence or between private and business activities, 36 a company’s registered office, branches or other business premises. 37 Other examples are occupation of a house belonging to another if this is for significant periods and on an annual basis, 38 one room occupied by the applicant in a building the rest of which he let to tenants, 39 and both garage and garden 40 as part of the property or tenancy. 41
Champion Briefs 112 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Nation is making progress on housing, current policies show that government housing is possible.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
The nation has, of course, made great progress in the housing area - one would be foolish not to recognize the reduction, for example, in slum housing and severe overcrowding over the past few decades. However, affordability problems have risen and now occupy first place in that sad contest. And the elimination or destruction of poor housing, via the urban renewal/highway programs and private market forces, has been achieved at the cost of massive disruption in people's lives and the growing gap between what people can afford to pay and the availability of housing units within their means. In the Preamble to the 1949 Housing Act, Congress asserted the National Housing Goal, which called for "the implementation as soon as feasible of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." (Affordability was not mentioned, as slum housing conditions were the nation's primary, most visible housing problem in the post-war period.) That goal was reiterated in the 1968 Housing Act, and in slightly different versions in the 1974 and 1990 Housing Acts. Congress has never followed up with the programs or provided resources to attain that goal. Nor have statutory declarations provided the basis for litigation to compel allocation of the needed resources. The 1968 Act took the brave step of setting forth a 10-year numerical target - 26 million units (6 million of which were for low- and moderate-income households) - and mandating year-by-year progress reports. But the effort failed by a considerable margin, and never again was Congress foolish enough to risk such embarrassment. By contrast, in the health and education areas, the nation has at least set specific goals and timetables - a good first step. In the mid-1990s the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services laid out specific health objectives to be achieved by the end of the century. After reporting some progress, the Department launched "Healthy People 2010," with updated goals. In the education area, Congress passed in 1994 the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which identified eight national educational goals pertaining to school readiness and completion, student achievement and citizenship, teacher education and professional development, and parental participation. It also called for the high school graduation rate to increase to at least 90 percent by the year 2000, a dramatic reduction in the dropout rate and the elimination of the gaps in high school graduation rates between students from minority backgrounds and their non- minority counterparts. And of course, more recently, the No Child Left Behind Act, while controversial, has set specific goals in the education area. Nothing even remotely comparable exists in the area of housing, save a commitment by some states and localities to 10-year plans to end homelessness - a worthy goal, to be sure, but light-years away from a Right to Decent, Affordable Housing.
Champion Briefs 113 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Most homeless are not chronically homeless they are just victims of circumstance.
Surowiecki, James. "Home Free?" The New Yorker. September 22, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
Of course, the chronically homeless are only a small percentage of the total homeless population. Most homeless people are victims of economic circumstances or of a troubled family environment, and are homeless for shorter stretches of time. The challenge, particularly when it comes to families with children, is insuring that people don’t get trapped in the system. And here, too, the same principles have been used, in an approach called Rapid Rehousing: the approach is to quickly put families into homes of their own, rather than keep them in shelters or transitional housing while they get housing-ready. The economic benefits of keeping people from getting swallowed by the shelter system can be immense: a recent Georgia study found that a person who stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing was five times as likely as someone who received rapid rehousing to become homeless again.
Champion Briefs 114 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Many Americans live on the edge of homelessness. Neither political party is treating this effectively.
Blumgart , Jake. "What An Affordable Housing Moonshot Would Look Like." Slate. July 01, 2016. Web. February 06, 2017.
Numbers can’t really convey the extent of the pain. Many of these Americans live on the edge of homelessness, perpetually a day away from eviction. Although all would qualify for housing assistance under any rational schema, only about one-third of low-income households receive such aid. While Desmond’s book has inspired comparisons to Michael Harrington’s The Other America, which helped motivate the Great Society reforms of the mid-1960s, the odds of a major housing reform passing are nothing if not remote. The Republican Party periodically declares an interest in anti-poverty efforts but rarely invests any political capital in the issue. Democrats haven’t treated affordable housing like a touchstone project either. During their party’s primary, the only candidate to propose truly substantial housing policy reforms was former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley.
Champion Briefs 115 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Housing is correlated with personal health.
Thiele, Brett. "The Human Right To Adequate Housing: A Tool For Promoting And Protecting Individual And Community He." American Journal of Public Health. May 01, 2002. Web. February 06, 2017.
With respect to the health as- pects of housing, General Com- ment No. 4 provides the clearest articulation of the minimum re- quirements necessary for housing to be considered adequately pro- tective of health. Furthermore, states parties to the ICESCR are legally obligated to respect, pro- tect, and fulfill these require- ments. One such requirement is that housing must be habitable, which includes “providing the in- habitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural haz- ards, and disease vectors.” Addi- tionally, in explaining the habit- ability requirement, General Comment No. 4 expressly en- courages states parties to the Covenant to “comprehensively apply the Health Principles of Housing prepared by the World Health Organization which view housing as the environmental factor most frequently associated with conditions for disease in epi- demiological analyses.”14 The Health Principles of Hous- ing elaborates 6 major principles governing the relationship be- tween housing and health: (1) protection against communica- ble diseases; (2) protection against injuries, poisonings, and chronic diseases; (3) reducing psychological and social stresses to a minimum; (4) improving the housing environment; (5) mak- ing informed use of housing; and (6) protecting populations at risk.17 The first 2 principles are particularly relevant to health. The first stresses that the follow- ing conditions are necessary to ensure adequate housing: safe water supply; sanitary disposal of excreta; disposal of solid wastes; drainage of surface water; personal and domestic hygiene; safe food protection; and structural safeguards against disease transmission. The sec- ond addresses construction ma- terials and techniques as well as structural safety, including venti- lation and light, and suggests that the physical dwelling must be such that inhabitants are not exposed to dangerous conditions or hazardous substances.
Champion Briefs 116 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Homelessness is a risk for youth to be prostituted and sold. Particularly marginalized youth are at risk.
Clawson, Heather. "HUMAN TRAFFICKING INTO AND WITHIN THE UNITED STATES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE." U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. August 30, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports (2006), across the United States 36,402 boys and 47,472 girls younger than age 18 were picked up by law enforcement and identified as runaways. Girls who run from their homes, group homes, foster homes, or treatment centers, are at great risk of being targeted by a pimp (or trafficker) and becoming exploited. Research consistently confirms the correlation between running away and becoming exploited through prostitution. Researchers have found that the majority of prostituted women had been runaways; for example, 96 percent in San Francisco (Silbert & Pines, 1982), 72 percent in Boston (Norton-Hawk, 2002) and 56 percent in Chicago (Raphael & Shapiro, 2002). Among prostituted youth (both boys and girls), up to 77 percent report having run away at least once (Seng, 1989). Experts have reported that within 48 hours of running away, an adolescent is likely to be approached to participate in prostitution or another form of commercial sexual exploitation (Spangenberg, 2001); however, no definitive published research substantiates this claim. Like girls, boys exploited through prostitution are most often runaways or throwaways (Flowers, 2001; Lankenau et al., 2005; Moxley-Goldsmith, 2005). For example, one study found that two-thirds of males exploited through prostitution had run away from home prior to becoming involved (Allen, 1980). While many of the factors leading to a young person leaving home are similar for boys and girls, it is estimated that between 40 and 50 percent of boys exploited through prostitution had been thrown out of their homes because of sexual identity issues (Earls & David, 1989; Seattle Commission on Children and Youth, 1986). Approximately 2535 percent of prostituted boys self-identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender/transsexual (Estes & Weiner, 2001). Further, regardless of the boys self- identification, at least 95 percent of all prostitution engaged in by boys is provided to adult men (Estes & Weiner, 2001). Regardless of their sex, when minors leave their homes, it is to protect themselves, often because they view living on the streets as either less dangerous or no more dangerous than staying at home (Hyde, 2005; Martinez, 2006).
Champion Briefs 117 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
POC are disproportionately represented in homelessness.
National Coalition For The Homeless,. "Minorities And Homelessness." National Coalition for the Homeless. July 01, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
People of color – particularly African-Americans – are a minority that is particularly overrepresented. According the PBS Homeless Fact and Figures ’07, 41% are non-Hispanic whites (compared to 76% of the general population), 40% are African Americans (compared to 11% of the general population) 11% are Hispanic (compared to 9% of the general population) and 8% percent are Native American (compared to 1% of the general population). Like the total U.S. population, though, the ethnic makeup of homeless populations varies according to geographic location. For example,people experiencing homelessness in rural areas are more likely to be white, female, married, currently working, homeless for the first time, and homeless for a shorter period of time (Fisher, 2005); homelessness among Native Americans and migrant workers is also largely a rural phenomenon.
Champion Briefs 118 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Minorities have higher rates of homelessness.
National Coalition For The Homeless,. "Minorities And Homelessness." National Coalition for the Homeless. July 01, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
Many other urban communities cite similar or higher numbers. The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless reports that 77% of its total homeless population is African-American. The disparities between ethnicities in the U.S. population and the homeless population are striking. In 2007, the homeless population was 47% African-American, though African-American people made up only 12% U.S. adult population. The homeless population was only 35% white, though white people made up about 76% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003; U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).
Champion Briefs 119 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Veterans account for a large portion of homeless people.
National Coalition For The Homeless,. "Minorities And Homelessness." National Coalition for the Homeless. July 01, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
Veterans make up approximately one-third of the male homeless population. Among this population about 46% are white, 56% are African-American or Latino (Department of Veteran Affairs, 2005).
Champion Briefs 120 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Queer people are at a higher risk for homelessness.
Cochran, Bryan. "Challenges Faced By Homeless Sexual Minorities: Comparison Of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, And Transgender." Am J Public Health. May 01, 2002. Web. February 06, 2017.
The sexual orientation of homeless persons is not often measured, but the National Network of Runaway and Youth Services estimates that about 6% of homeless adolescents are gay or lesbian. Studies assessing sexual orientations of homeless adolescents have revealed rates ranging from 11% to 35% (American Journal of Public Health, 2002). These youths face considerable risk of violence and abuse while homeless.
Champion Briefs 121 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Homeless families are at risk of having their children removed. Homelessness affects those that need help the most.
Foscarinis, Maria. "Homeless Problem Bigger Than Our Leaders Think: Column." USA Today. January 16, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
Similarly, in some cities, families seeking shelter can be threatened with removal of their children; families living outside have extra incentive to avoid detection. To its credit, the Obama administration has made a commitment to ending homelessness and, to measure progress, it needs data. Methods pioneered in New York City that statistically adjust for the built-in inaccuracies of the "street" count could significantly improve it. But the data must not only be accurate; they must also be the right data, and that's the larger issue. Homelessness happens over time, not on a single night — and it reflects a deeper crisis. According to Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies, low-income households suffer an unprecedented housing cost burden, forcing many to choose between rent and food. Too often, homelessness is the result. Another reason to doubt HUD's reporting: On Thursday, the Department of Veterans Affairs released statistics showing that homelessness among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans is sharply rising despite new efforts to help them. Ending homelessness requires closing the gap between the need for housing and its availability. It requires recognizing housing as a basic human right, and enacting policies to ensure it is available. Homelessness can and must be ended. But it won't be if our leaders report that there is no crisis.
Champion Briefs 122 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Housing the mentally ill is key to helping them.
Surowiecki, James. "Home Free?" The New Yorker. September 22, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
Handing mentally ill substance abusers the keys to a new place may sound like an example of wasteful government spending. But it turned out to be the opposite: over time, Housing First has saved the government money. Homeless people are not cheap to take care of. The cost of shelters, emergency-room visits, ambulances, police, and so on quickly piles up. Lloyd Pendleton, the director of Utah’s Homeless Task Force, told me of one individual whose care one year cost nearly a million dollars, and said that, with the traditional approach, the average chronically homeless person used to cost Salt Lake City more than twenty thousand dollars a year. Putting someone into permanent housing costs the state just eight thousand dollars, and that’s after you include the cost of the case managers who work with the formerly homeless to help them adjust. The same is true elsewhere. A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars.
Champion Briefs 123 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Domestic Violence and homelessness are correlated.
Kucs , Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017.
An average of 50-60% of all homeless women report that they are homeless because they are fleeing domestic violence. Domestic violence occurs to a greater or lesser degree in all regions, countries, societies, and cultures; it affects women irrespective of income, class, or ethnicity. 81 In this regard the ECHR has adopted a significant 82 decision in case Opuz v. Turkey 83 concerning domestic violence. It held that Turkey had violated, inter alia, Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 of the ECHRFF on account of the violence suffered by the applicant and her mother having been gender-based, which amounted to a form of discrimination against women, especially bearing in mind that, in cases of domestic violence in Turkey, the general passivity of the judicial system and impunity enjoyed by aggressors mainly affected women. 84 It is interesting, that although the applicant did not rely on either Article 8 ECHRFF or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in her application, there are several references in the judgment that the applicant was forced to leave her home due to threats from her husband. 85 Thus, by admitting that the domestic violence in the current case amounted to discrimination on grounds of sex, the ECHR has implied that Article 14 of the ECHRFF has also been indirectly violated as regards to the applicant's right to housing, since she was not able to enjoy it adequately on the grounds that she was a woman. However, as Giulia Paglione suggests, there is a common limitation in the otherwise progressive domestic violence cases: housing rights, are still excluded or ignored in any analysis of domestic violence. 86 Consequently it is clear that only by correctly interpreting the right to housing as a universal, justiciable human right, which incorporates the right to live free from domestic violence, can the fight against such violence qualitatively improve and reach in a substantial way the numerous abused women.
Champion Briefs 124 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Homelessness is not receiving attention it need, this only exacerbates the problem.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
I would suggest several reasons for non-attention. One is that, to a large extent, the fact that one- third of the nation still is ill-housed is a hidden problem. Lack of affordability - our number-one problem - and its broader implications on poor people's lives is not something the fortunate among us experience or even know about. Spatially, too, the rise of gated communities, sprawl and the extreme residential segregation by class and race keep those on top from knowing much about those on the bottom - a form of "American Apartheid," as Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton's 1993 study so aptly put it. Race is its own barrier. The creation of a true Right to Housing bumps squarely against issues of location and access. Who is to live near whom, go to school with whom? Americans simply don't want to acknowledge the workings and vast impact of structural racism, let alone individual racist attitudes and behavior. How to deal with that confounds us. But unless and until we face that problem, it will inhibit serious movement toward providing all Americans - black, brown, yellow, white and all the skin color mixtures in between - with this basic need and right. Cost is possibly another barrier. To provide every American household with decent, affordable housing, given the large and widening gap between incomes and housing costs, will require vastly more government subsidies than we now devote to housing - the exact amount of course depends on what kinds of programs, what systems of financing, ownership, development and management we choose (the more market-oriented, the larger the cost; the more we create a social housing sector, the smaller the cost), but think along the lines of $80-100 billion annually. Maybe it would be an easier sell if we make clear the costs of having one-third of a nation ill-housed - and explain how eliminating those costs greatly reduces the bill. And it may be an easier sell if we drive home the point that upper-income taxpayers already get subsidies of that order via the tax system. Not that the society can't afford this: look how easily we come up with similar amounts to bail out savings and loans, make war, give massive tax breaks to the wealthy. It's all a matter of political will.
Champion Briefs 125 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
We need to address the root cause of housing, affordable housing controls the link to homelessness.
Carrier , Scott. "Room For Improvement." Mother Jones. March 01, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
WE COULD, AS A COUNTRY, look at the root causes of homelessness and try to fix them. One of the main causes is that a lot of people can't afford a place to live. They don't have enough money to pay rent, even for the cheapest dives available. Prices are rising, inventory is extremely tight, and the upshot is, as a new report by the Urban Institute finds, that there's only 29 affordable units available for every 100 extremely low-income households. So we could create more jobs, redistribute the wealth, improve education, socialize health carebasically redesign our political and economic systems to make sure everybody can afford a roof over their heads.
Champion Briefs 126 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Housing the homeless empirically works- solves the root issues.
Carrier , Scott. "Room For Improvement." Mother Jones. March 01, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
Tsemberis and his associates, a group called Pathways to Housing, ran a large test in which they provided apartments to 242 chronically homeless individuals, no questions asked. In their apartments they could drink, take drugs, and suffer mental breakdowns, as long as they didn't hurt anyone or bother their neighbors. If they needed and wanted to go to rehab or detox, these services were provided. If they needed and wanted medical care, it was also provided. But it was up to the client to decide what services and care to participate in. The results were remarkable. After five years, 88 percent of the clients were still in their apartments, and the cost of caring for them in their own homes was a little less than what it would have cost to take care of them on the street. A subsequent study of 4,679 New York City homeless with severe mental illness found that each cost an average of $40,449 a year in emergency room, shelter, and other expenses to the system, and that getting those individuals in supportive housing saved an average of $16,282. Soon other cities such as Seattle and Portland, Maine, as well as states like Rhode Island and Illinois, ran their own tests with similar results. Denver found that emergency-service costs alone went down 73 percent for people put in Housing First, for a savings of $31,545 per person; detox visits went down 82 percent, for an additional savings of $8,732. By 2003, Housing First had been embraced by the Bush administration.
Champion Briefs 127 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Santa Clara Country shows that housing the homeless works and is cheap.
Carrier , Scott. "Room For Improvement." Mother Jones. March 01, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
Like Pendleton, they addressed the chronically homeless cases first. In 2011, in conjunction with a national effort called 100,000 Homes, they began a trial to house 1,000 people who'd been homeless for an average of 18 years and estimated to cost the system upward of $60,000 a year. "Our motto was, 'Whatever it takes,'" Loving says. "We built the plane as we were flying it." That meant lots of innovation along the way, such as creating a $100,000 flex fund to do things like pay off small dings on people's credit, so they could qualify for vouchers and establish rental history: "So if Bob has an eight-year-old violation on his credit history, we'd just pay that off," Loving says. By the end of 2014, they had housed 840 people in apartments scattered around the county. The remaining 100 or so have rental subsidies but can't find a place to live due to exceptionally high occupancy rates. Still, the trial was considered a big success—in part because supported housing only cost an estimated $25,000 per person—and Santa Clara County has now officially adopted the Housing First model. "We made a system out of nothing, and we used it like an assembly line to house people," Loving says. "And the only thing in our way is the high cost of housing stock." So now they're embarking on a five-year plan to house the county's remaining 6,000 homeless. First, they've launched an extensive study on exactly how much homelessness actually costs taxpayers. Those costs are very hard to determine: There are so many agencies involved—hospitals, jails, police, detox centers, mental-health clinics, shelters, service providers—and they all keep separate records, separate sets of data used for separate purposes, all run on separate pieces of software. "Each department has an information system and a team that looks at the data," says Ky Le, director of the Office of Supportive Housing for Santa Clara. "They have small teams who know their data best, how it's configured and why, what's accurate and what's not." Ky says that merging datasets has been "a tremendous effort," but by integrating and analyzing it, Santa Clara hopes to better understand who's already a "frequent flier" of clinics and jails, and, more tantalizingly, to develop an early warning system for who is likely to become one, and how they can be housed and cared for in the most cost- effective manner. New housing needs to be found, or built, but with the market so tight, finding housing—any housing—is a huge challenge, one made worse when Gov. Jerry Brown slashed all $1.7 billion of the state's redevelopment funds during the 2011 budget crisis. (Those funds have not rematerialized now that California has a huge budget surplus.) So they're getting creative— "tiny homes, pod housing, stackable—we're looking at it all," Loving says. And they're employing creative financing efforts, like "pay-for-success" bonds, in which investors (mostly foundations) would stake the construction funds and get a small return if the savings materialize for the county.
Champion Briefs 128 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Utah has drastically reduced their homeless population through free housing.
McEver , Kelly. "Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How." NPR. December 10, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
A decade ago, Utah set itself an ambitious goal: end chronic homelessness. As of 2015, the state can just about declare victory: The population of chronically homeless people has dropped by 91 percent. The state's success story has generated headlines around the country, and even The Daily Show With Jon Stewart looked to Utah to understand how the state achieved its goal. In fact, Utah still has a substantial homeless problem. The overall homeless population is around 14,000. The chronically homeless, on the other hand, are a subset of the homeless population that is often the most vulnerable. These are people who have been living on the streets for more than a year, or four times in the past three years, and who have a "disabling condition" that might include serious mental illness, an addiction or a physical disability or illness. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that represents about 20 percent of the national homeless population. By implementing a model known as Housing First, Utah has reduced that number from nearly 2,000 people in 2005, to fewer than 200 now.
Champion Briefs 129 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Homeless often commit crimes to get off the streets.
Ramesh, Randeep. "A Fifth Of All Homeless People Have Committed A Crime To Get Off The Streets." The Guardian. December 22, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
A fifth of homeless people have committed "imprisonable offences" to spend a night in the cells and more than a quarter of women rough sleepers took an "unwanted sexual partner" to escape their plight, new research out today shows. Hidden Homelessness, a survey of more than 400 rough sleepers by Sheffield Hallam University, reveals the desperate steps taken by the homeless to find shelter. A major homeless charity warns that these trends will become more pronounced as planned government cuts to benefits begin to hit frontline services. Unwanted sex has become a way out of homelessness for many. One in seven men and 28% of women had spent a night – or longer – with an unwanted sexual partner to "accommodate themselves". Others have ventured into prostitution, with almost a fifth of women taking up "sex work" because this offered an opportunity to spend the night off the streets.
Champion Briefs 130 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Decreasing homelessness has a laundry list of positive effect.
Gonzales, Carolyn. "UNM Study Reveals Cost Benefits In Housing The Homeless." University of New Mexico. June 05, 2014. Web. February 07, 2017.
The results of the study demonstrate that one-year after being housed, study group member costs were $615,920.49 or 31.6 percent less than costs incurred the previous year they were not in the program. This amounted to an average savings of $12,831.68 per homeless individual in the study. Other results: ** The Heading Home Initiative serves the particularly vulnerable former homeless. ** Study group members reported being homeless an average of 8.59 years in their lifetime. ** Self-reported shelter housing costs amounted to $117,948.92 prior to being housed. ** Study group members’ emergency room visits decreased by 36.2 percent after being housed. ** Emergency room costs declined from $208.439.74 to $181.272.62, a decrease of $27,167.12. ** Prior to being housed, jail costs were $51,540.30, which decreased to $33,091.41, a 64.2 percent decrease once housed. ** Hospital inpatient costs decreased by 83.8 percent and medical outpatient costs decreased by 39.1 percent. ** Social service costs (case management, outreach, social work) increased by 469.3 percent. ** In the pre-time period, 13 study group individuals spent 766 days in MDC. In the post-time period, four study group members spent 281 days in MDC. ** Heading Home housing costs were $309,706.37 and service costs were $106,473.07 in the post-time period for an average of $8,670.41 per study group member.
Champion Briefs 131 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Communities have the ability to band together to reduce homelessness for cheap.
Garrett, Daniel G. "The Business Case For Ending Homelessness: Having A Home Improves Health, Reduces Healthcare Utiliza." Am Health Drug Benefits. January 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
I have learned that ending homelessness is a reasonable goal. This does not mean that no one will ever become homeless again; it does mean that if we address the housing needs of the people who are experiencing homelessness now, we will have more resources to prevent homelessness from happening in the future, or to respond quickly and effectively when a person loses his/her housing. Homelessness can be just a brief episode in one's life; if we use our resources wisely, no one in our community has to experience homelessness for the long-term. Housing ends homelessness and reduces costs. The Homeward Bound of Asheville Housing First program costs about $10,000 per person annually, which is substantially less than it costs our community to maintain homelessness for any individual. We also end it by coordinating our efforts and working together. The data confirm that we have had a drop in homelessness in Ashville during a time of budget cuts, high unemployment rates, and declining property values, thanks to the collaboration, accountability, and system efficiency that is emerging from our community-wide homeless initiative.12 The United States is at a national crossroads in terms of rapidly rising healthcare costs, and we need more community-wide leadership, volunteers, and donations to truly impact the way people experience a housing crisis. Homelessness affects the health and well-being of our entire community, and it is within our power to change the way we address it, and even end it. Agencies working on homelessness do a lot with very little, helping hundreds of people to get out of homelessness, and even more people to avoid it completely. If we all— healthcare leaders, businesses, agencies, schools, faith groups, and neighbors—join together, we will see the experience of homelessness in our communities change for everyone. Patient- centered medical homes have been getting much attention in the healthcare industry and in medical journals. An effective way for each of us who is engaged in healthcare to be involved in improving health outcomes and lowering costs is to support the effort to ensure that every American has a home. Housing is healthcare. As we end homelessness one household at a time, we improve the health of our community members, we improve the fiscal well-being of our healthcare systems, and we improve the quality of life for everyone in our community. As the body of evidence supporting the tie between housing and healthcare continues to grow, those of us in the medical world would be wise to seek opportunities to invest in solutions to homelessness. As healthcare professionals and community members, we must recognize our role as stakeholders in ending homelessness and take responsibility as informed leaders who can advocate for housing to end homelessness and improve health. I got involved by walking my dog, and I look forward to the day when every person Max meets on the streets of Asheville has a place to call home and the healthcare benefits he or she needs.
Champion Briefs 132 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Harm reduction theory can be used when discussing the harms of drug use in terms of homelessness.
Pauly, Bernadette. "Housing And Harm Reduction: What Is The Role Of Harm Reduction In Addressing Homelessness?" International Journal of Drug Policy. March 15, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
The importance of social inclusion and meaningful participation of those affected by policies has emerged in discourse on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS, 1999), drug use (Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2005) and homelessness (Owen, 2009; Paasche, 2009; Paasche et al., 2009). A key principle of harm reduction is the inclusion of people who use drugs in every aspect of the development and implementa- tion of policies and programs that impact their lives (International Harm Reduction Association, 2010). Adoption of social inclusion policies and practices can facilitate the voices of those with lived experience to be heard in the development of policies and programs and is important to operationalizing principles of harm reduc- tion. Social inclusion is a determinant of health and is evidence of valuing the wisdom of lived experience, which is part of the the- oretical underpinnings of the risk environment framework. While it is essential to address power differentials in the process of social inclusion, involving people with lived experience can help break the stigma attached to homelessness, mental illness and/or sub- stance use, improve the efficiency of services, and promote health by promoting self-esteem and increasing individual control ovehealth and determinants of health (Norman & Pauly, 2013; World Health Organization, 2005).People with experiences of homelessness and drug use are not a homogenous group. The development of social inclusion poli- cies as well as specific harm reduction programming in housing should account for gender, social position, ethnicity and other rel- evant dimensions of difference. In Canada, Aboriginal people are over-represented among homeless populations. So, the impact of colonization and role of substance use need to be respected and considered (Dell & Lyons, 2007; Dell, Lyons, & Cayer, 2010). The needs of women and youth for harm reduction services often dif- fer from those of men. Effective harm reduction strategies that account for difference and diversity will only emerge with the full engagement and social inclusion of those in need of such services. Even when the importance of social inclusion is acknowledged, there is often a lack of understanding about how to implement social inclusion strategies. In order to address this gap, the GVCEH has undertaken initial work to develop a social inclusion policy beginning with a literature review of promising practices related to homelessness and social inclusion (Norman & Pauly, 2012, 2013). A second step, currently in process, is to develop an understanding of social inclusion practices from the perspectives of those impacted to guide implementation of an organizational social inclusion pol- icy.
Champion Briefs 133 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Harms reduction principle shows how successful drug reduction and housing can work together.
Pauly, Bernadette. "Housing And Harm Reduction: What Is The Role Of Harm Reduction In Addressing Homelessness?" International Journal of Drug Policy. March 15, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
For the purposes of action plans to address homelessness, harm reduction strategies within project based housing initiatives as well as in the community for those in market housing are needed to ensure that harm reduction and treatment services are available ‘on demand.’ To reduce harms of injection drug use, The Dr. Peter Centre in Vancouver has needle exchange and supervised injection services on-site for day program participants and housing partic- ipants (Wood, Zettel, & Stewart, 2003). In project based housing, clients may be allowed to drink in their rooms as long as their behaviour does not interfere or prove disruptive to others in the building (Larimer et al., 2009). Managed alcohol programs may also be part of project based Housing First initiatives (Collins, Clifasefi, Logan, et al., 2012; Collins, Clifasefi, Dana, et al., 2012). Portland Hotel Society in Vancouver, well known for support of community harm reduction initiatives such as Insite, have established several managed alcohol programs in project based housing. While there has been considerable focus on evaluation of strategies to reduce the harms of illicit drug use, less focus has been given to the evalu- ation of programs related to reducing the harms of alcohol among homeless populations. This is an important area for future research. Programs such as SheWay in Vancouver have developed to meet the specific needs of women who are pregnant, parenting and using substances (Garm, 1999). Additional understanding of the appli- cation of harm reduction principles is needed for women that are pregnant and parenting.
Champion Briefs 134 AFF: Homelessness Advantages AC March/April 2017
Harms reduction principle is the best for a housing first approach.
Pauly, Bernadette. "Housing And Harm Reduction: What Is The Role Of Harm Reduction In Addressing Homelessness?" International Journal of Drug Policy. March 15, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
Adapting a given system to integrate harm reduction into Hous- ing First initiatives requires adequate organizational infrastructure. Important components include policies, staff training, public edu- cation, and adequate information systems. Even when understood and accepted, harm reduction practices can only be sustained through the development of clear policies, protocols and practices related to substance use and harm reduction. A commitment to harm reduction in organizational mission statements and values are important initial steps. Policies and practices to support safer use as well as managed use of substances in housing programs are essential for staff to effectively implement strategies that reduce harms of substance use. Moving towards systemic integration of harm reduction requires careful attention to training. Given socio-political resis- tance to harm reduction, training must include and even begin with attention to values, philosophy and the broad principles that under- pin harm reduction and Housing First. Such training should include opportunities for reflection on both personal and professional val- ues. For example, one of the authors has worked with nurses and the nursing profession to promote value based understandings and discussion of harm reduction in relation to professional values and standards of practice (Lightfoot et al., 2009; Pauly, Goldstone, McCall, Gold, & Payne, 2007). Clearly, staff working with people who use alcohol and/or other drugs need training focused on prac- tical everyday operations related to safer use of drugs and alcohol, appropriate use of equipment and supplies, access to health care providers, personal safety practices and procedures for handling disposal of harm reduction supplies, and mechanisms for dealing with critical incidents. Again, training must be complemented by a set of clear and consistent policies that embrace harm reduction including vision and values as well as policies and procedures for harm reduction.
Champion Briefs 135 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Housing is a Human Right AC
While there are different interpretations of Kantian political and moral philosophy, a couple of interpretations in particular may lead to a strong justification for the right to housing.
The most ideal frameworks for the offense of this affirmative may either stem from Ripstein’s systematic treatment of Kantian political philosophy in Force and Freedom, or from any other
Kantians that endorse distributive justice in some shape or form. Ultimately, the criterion for the framework should be something along the lines of “maintaining systems of equal outer freedom.” The cards in this section of the brief all speak to the foundations of freedom and rights when establishing a state or current state apparatuses that produce imbalances of freedom.
The Weinrib cards in this section argue that a rightful condition requires that governments provide for the basic needs of its citizens. If the government fails to do so, the will of those in need would be subject to the will of others, because they have to rely on the generosity, which no individual has a right to. The state’s obligation to provide for citizens rectifies this violation of independence. Further, the Fitzpatrick cards in this section argue that some individuals are not treated with full dignity, and that the right to housing is thus necessary to confer full humanity onto marginalized individuals. It may also be useful here to add impacts to oppression, to allow for the aff to leverage substantive offense against Kritiks and DA’s that the negative may potentially read against the aff.
Champion Briefs 136 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
UN Law guarantees a right to housing, more than half the world doesn’t meet the basic standard of housing.
Kucs , Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017.
The right to housing was recognized already in Article 25 of the first international human rights instrument, whose 60th anniversary was recently celebrated –the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter, UDHR)– and has been later embedded in Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter, ICESCR) and other international and regional human rights treaties. However, the broader acceptance of this right as a legally justiciable right in the UN Member States and, especially, its implementation is still a way to go. The statistics are exposing the reality: while the majority of the world’s population lives in some form of a dwelling, roughly one half of the world’s population does not enjoy the full spectrum of entitlements necessary for housing to be considered adequate. The UN estimates indicate that approximately 100 million people worldwide are without a place to live, and over 1 billion people are inadequately housed.
Champion Briefs 137 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Housing is an integral part of multiple rights outlined by international law.
Kucs , Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017.
Recent developments in the international human rights law and also the jurisprudence of regional and national human rights bodies show that social and economic rights, including the right to housing, are getting a greater recognition. They are seen as an integral part of economic, social and cultural rights within the UN, European, Inter-American, and African human rights instruments. 2 While the objections against the foundations of housing rights and other social and economic rights are still periodically raised, the interdependence between civil and political, and social and economic rights has been more and more acknowledged. 3 For example, the minimum core of the housing rights is closely linked to the right to human dignity. The lack of affordable housing places poor people in the impossible position of having to choose between the most basic of human necessities: housing or food, housing or health care, housing or clothing, and so on. 4The relationship between homelessness, intolerable living conditions and human dignity is of vital importance from the legal point of view due to the fact that one might argue that the right to human dignity has achieved the status of international customary law and therefore is legally binding for all states regardless of their abstinence to adhere to human rights treaties granting the right to housing. Furthermore, the connection between housing rights and such civil rights as the right to family and private life, right to property, and even the right to life, have long been recognized in the case-law of different international and regional human rights bodies.
Champion Briefs 138 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Though states vary on their implementation of housing rights there is still a core obligation to housing.
Kucs , Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017.
It is true that there is no consensus as regards the exact scope of this right, level of recognition and nature of state obligations. While some states clearly recognize housing rights as individual justiciable rights, others regard it as a principle, which states should strive to ensure. The UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing has noted that housing rights should not be taken to imply that this right will manifest itself in precisely the same manner in all circumstances and locations. 5 The scale of the problems, available resources and the approaches of countries certainly vary. However, despite the disagreement on the precise content of the housing rights there is an increasing consensus on the minimum core obligations for states to ensure the implementation of the most essential elements of this right. This minimum core of housing rights should be fulfilled despite the reference of the state to the inadequacy of resources. A frequent example to mention is the obligation for states to abstain from carrying out or advocating the practice of forced or arbitrary evictions of any persons or groups from their homes. The content of these core obligations derives from the synthesis of the jurisprudence of international, regional, and national human rights protection bodies, which is analyzed in the following chapters.
Champion Briefs 139 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Article 25 of the UDHR guarantees a right to housing.
Kucs , Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017.
As mentioned above, the right to housing is proclaimed already in the UDHR. According to Article 25 (1) everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well- being of himself and of his family, including, inter alia, housing. Subsequently, this right was further strengthened by its inclusion in Article 11 (1) 6 of the ICESCR, which lays down the duty of the States Parties to recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family. Due to the legally binding nature of the ICESCR and the numerous explanations made by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter, CESCR) on the state obligations and the content of the right to housing in the ICESCR, Article 11 (1) of the ICESCR is generally accepted as one of the most significant legal sources of this right. Therefore, considerations made by the UN CESCR as regards Article 11 (1) of the ICESCR may be referred to for the interpretation of housing rights in other human rights instruments. The CESCR has expressed the most of the clarifications on the state obligations and the content of the right to housing in its General Comments 7 and in the Concluding Observations on state reports. As with other social and economic rights, the CESCR has identified four layers of obligations of the states in relation to the right to adequate housing: to respect, to protect, to promote and to fulfill. 8 At the minimum level, the state and all its organs should abstain from adopting legal measures, policies or practices leading to the deterioration of the existing situation. An example to mention is the abstention from the policy or the practice of arbitrary or forced evictions of any persons or groups from their homes. The obligation to promote is farther reaching and requires the state to take active steps at the level of policy, legislation and practice which would gradually lead to the elimination of homelessness. It is essential to underline that the measures taken at this level, like the adoption of the national housing strategy, should involve discussions and consultations with all the groups affected. Furthermore, active steps are required from the state to prevent violations of the right to housing by non-state actors. The state should provide for legal remedies and protection in the case of abuse of housing rights by landlords, property developers, landowners or other actors. Finally, the obligation to fulfill includes a number of redistributive economic measures taken by the state, like the provision of public housing, housing subsidies, and monitoring rent levels.
Champion Briefs 140 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
ECHRF implies a right to housing per article 8.
Kucs , Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017.
The ECHRFF was signed on 4 November 1950 in Rome in order to secure fundamental civil and political rights to everyone within the jurisdiction of the Member States of the COE, and entered into force in 1953. It is deemed to be one of the most powerful international treaties on human rights protection as its application is controlled by the ECHR where individuals can apply directly against a Member State of the COE. The decisions of the ECHR are binding on the Member States concerned and have led governments to alter their legislation and administrative practice in a wide range of areas. 17 The ECHRFF does not contain a right to housing per se. However, it includes civil and political rights provisions interpreted by the ECHR as leading to the development of housing rights, especially within Article 8 (respect for private life, family life, and home) 18 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHRFF (protection of possessions), 19 which happen to be among the most frequently invoked articles before the ECHR. 20 Also Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), Article 6 (right to fair trial) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) 21 have been interpreted by the ECHR in the context of housing. Article 8 (1) is the closest to provide the right to housing: «Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence». While Article 8 seeks to protect four areas of personal autonomy, these areas are not mutually exclusive.
Champion Briefs 141 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The right to housing is rooted in personal dignity and development.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
The arguments for a Right to Housing are straightforward: Housing is where people spend the most time, where family life is nurtured, so it should be safe, comfortable, supportive. Housing costs are, for most households, the largest expenditure and so should not be so high as to prevent meeting other basic needs - food, clothing, medical care, transportation, etc. Housing is more than four walls and a roof: It is part of a neighborhood and community, providing opportunities for positive social interaction and safety from crime. Housing location affects access to quality schools, jobs and community services. The societal costs - added health services to deal with housing-linked problems such as asthma, lead poisoning, rat bites, asphyxiation, communicable diseases; emergency fire and police services; crime and incarceration; services for the homeless; and so on - of not having decent, affordable housing for all are enormous and growing. A true cost-benefit analysis might show that not having a Right to Housing is far more costly, in economic terms alone, than not implementing such a right. There is a great deal of support for having a Right to Housing. The U.S. Catholic Bishops, the Massachusetts Episcopal Diocese and the American Baptist Churches are a few of the faith-based sources. The National Association of Social Workers is representative of support from relevant professional groups. Many United Nations documents, as well as the laws of a great many other countries, advocate for and assert such a right. There is no shortage of authoritative, compelling pleadings.
Champion Briefs 142 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Housing the homeless is super cost effective, Utah proves.
Surowiecki, James. "Home Free?" The New Yorker. September 22, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
Housing First isn’t just cost-effective. It’s more effective, period. The old model assumed that before you could put people into permanent homes you had to deal with their underlying issues—get them to stop drinking, take their medication, and so on. Otherwise, it was thought, they’d end up back on the streets. But it’s ridiculously hard to get people to make such changes while they’re living in a shelter or on the street. “If you move people into permanent supportive housing first, and then give them help, it seems to work better,” Nan Roman, the president and C.E.O. of the National Alliance for Homelessness, told me. “It’s intuitive, in a way. People do better when they have stability.” Utah’s first pilot program placed seventeen people in homes scattered around Salt Lake City, and after twenty-two months not one of them was back on the streets. In the years since, the number of Utah’s chronically homeless has fallen by seventy-four per cent.
Champion Briefs 143 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Netherlands guaranteed a right to housing in 1901 and it has been a huge success.
Kucs, Arturs. "The Right To Housing: International, European And National Perspectives." University of Latvia. March 03, 2005. Web. February 06, 2017.
The Netherlands has long-established housing laws and tribunals upholding a nationally recognized right to housing for all Dutch citizens. 124 The Netherlands adopted its first housing legislation creating social housing at the turn of the 20th century with the Housing Act of 1901. 125 Additionally, the Netherlands was one of the first European countries to include the right to housing in its Constitution. 126 It has been a leader in providing the right to housing, becoming the country with the largest publicly-funded housing for rent (36%), 127 showing that it is possible to enforce the right to housing in the national courts without overwhelming the judicial system. Over 100 years ago the Housing Act of 1901 created housing associations, and authorized the state to support them financially. These housing associations make the Dutch housing policy rather unique. Although largely independent, the associations are funded and regulated by the state to ensure that they meet national housing needs and increase the supply of affordable housing. However, throughout the years, the associations have increasingly financed the buildings on their own; the Dutch government now subsidizes the rent to make housing affordable. Moreover, the 1997 Housing Allowance Act regulates housing allowances. Housing allowances have been evaluated several times, and as a result, the program has improved step by step. Every tenant whose rent is relatively high in relation to household income and who meets certain conditions is entitled to a housing allowance. 128 Tenants additionally have standing to challenge unreasonable rents through the Rent Tribunal Act. 129 All in all, the Netherlands serves as a role model for other countries seeking to make the right to housing justiciable. The Netherlands has taken steps within its economic resources to uphold the right to housing. First, the Housing Allowance Act provides that all those in need can get the financial assistance to find housing. Second, the Rent Tribunal Act empowers citizens to challenge unreasonable rents. These clearly articulated rights guarantee to citizens affordable housing and make it possible for Dutch courts to interpret the right to housing broadly.
Champion Briefs 144 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Government funds pay for housing through income difference supplements by tax dollars.
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities,. "Policy Basics: Public Housing." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. May 31, 2016. Web. February 06, 2017.
The federal government funds public housing through two main streams: (1) the Public Housing Operating Fund, which is intended to cover the gap between the rents that public housing tenants pay and the developments’ operating costs (such as maintenance and security); and (2) the Public Housing Capital Fund, which funds renovation of developments and replacement of items such as appliances and heating and cooling equipment. In addition, the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (which Congress first funded in 2010 and has replaced the similar “HOPE VI” program) provides a small number of grants each year to revitalize distressed public housing developments. No funds have been provided to build additional public housing since the mid- 1990s.
Champion Briefs 145 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Homeless youth are at risk of being victimized.
Clawson, Heather. "HUMAN TRAFFICKING INTO AND WITHIN THE UNITED STATES: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE." U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. August 30, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
Once on the street, homeless youth are at risk for being victimized because they lack the funds, interpersonal and job skills, and support systems necessary to survive on their own (Martinez, 2006). Having often come from chaotic families, runaways tend to lack strategies for problem solving, conflict resolution, and meeting basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter (Martinez, 2006; Robertson & Toro, 1999; Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Yoder, 1999). Some minors turn to substance abuse, crime, and survival sex to meet their basic needs (Greene, Ennett, & Ringwald, 1999; Riley, Greif, Caplan, & MacAulay, 2004; Robertson & Toro, 1999). Furthermore, exposure to the dangers of the street makes them more visible and vulnerable to traffickers, and their risky lifestyles and routines put them at greater risk of being victimized (Kipke, Simon, Montgomery, Unger, & Iversen, 1997; MacLean, Embry, & Cauce, 1999; Tyler, Cauce, & Whitbeck, 2004). Most runaway/throwaway youth are likely to run to and congregate in urban areas, so it is not surprising that there is general consensus that a greater percentage of minors are exploited in the U.S. sex industry in urban areas, though they may be brought from suburban and rural areas (Flowers, 2001). However, an increase in minor arrests in suburban counties/areas and rural areas has experts speculating that the increase is indicative of an expansion of prostitution beyond city limits (Flowers, 2001). While these data are somewhat outdated, anecdotal evidence from service providers indicates that this trend continues (A. Adams, personal communication, March 2006; N. Hotaling, personal communication, June 2006). However, further research is needed to determine whether the increase in suburban arrests is due to better identification or an actual increase in incidence.
Champion Briefs 146 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Right to housing exists because housing is the primary need for a fulfilled life.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
The arguments for a Right to Housing are straightforward: Housing is where people spend the most time, where family life is nurtured, so it should be safe, comfortable, supportive. Housing costs are, for most households, the largest expenditure and so should not be so high as to prevent meeting other basic needs - food, clothing, medical care, transportation, etc. Housing is more than four walls and a roof: It is part of a neighborhood and community, providing opportunities for positive social interaction and safety from crime. Housing location affects access to quality schools, jobs and community services. The societal costs - added health services to deal with housing-linked problems such as asthma, lead poisoning, rat bites, asphyxiation, communicable diseases; emergency fire and police services; crime and incarceration; services for the homeless; and so on - of not having decent, affordable housing for all are enormous and growing. A true cost-benefit analysis might show that not having a Right to Housing is far more costly, in economic terms alone, than not implementing such a right. There is a great deal of support for having a Right to Housing. The U.S. Catholic Bishops, the Massachusetts Episcopal Diocese and the American Baptist Churches are a few of the faith-based sources. The National Association of Social Workers is representative of support from relevant professional groups. Many United Nations documents, as well as the laws of a great many other countries, advocate for and assert such a right. There is no shortage of authoritative, compelling pleadings.
Champion Briefs 147 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Efforts of housing need to be centered on the right to housing.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Were we to accept, politically, the need to establish a Right to Housing, we then would have to fill in the details as to the content of that right. While we're not at that point, and all our energies should focus on achieving the principle and acceptance that there should be a Right to Housing, it is useful at least to list what elements need to be considered. o Affordability standards. Rather than the usual percentage-of-income rule, Michael Stone, the late Cushing Dolbeare and others have put forward an approach that should be the operating principle - ensuring that all non- shelter needs, in addition to housing costs, can be met, thus producing a percentage figure that is not a fixed number but a variable according to household size and income level. o Physical condition and space standards. The best local housing code standards (following a detailed examination of these ordinances) might be posited, or possibly HUD's Housing Quality Standards. Overcrowding standards must guard, on the one hand, against cultural bias and, on the other hand, against accepting dramatically lower standards for the poor. o A suitable living environment. With regard to the super-important issue of neighborhood quality, there are few, if any, usable standards at present, and so serious work must be undertaken to develop these. And security of tenure should be a key element, too, while allowing for reasonable land-use changes.
Champion Briefs 148 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Homeless people often turn to selling themselves to get off the street.
Ramesh, Randeep. "A Fifth Of All Homeless People Have Committed A Crime To Get Off The Streets." The Guardian. December 22, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
Crime can play a big part in rough sleepers' lives. Nearly 30% admitted to committing a "minor crime such as shoplifting or anti-social behaviour" in the hope of being taken into custody for the night. And a fifth of those questioned said they had avoided being given bail or committed "an imprisonable offence with the express purpose of receiving a custodial sentence as a means to resolving their housing problems". Part of the difficulty, the report identifies, is that people were not getting the help they need and many cannot easily negotiate their way into, for example, a hostel. The result is a "hidden homelessness" where people sleep on friends' floors, in squats or on the streets. They also resort to extreme steps to put a roof over their heads.
Champion Briefs 149 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Homeless people commit crimes to avoid staying on the streets.
Ramesh, Randeep. "A Fifth Of All Homeless People Have Committed A Crime To Get Off The Streets." The Guardian. December 22, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
Crime can play a big part in rough sleepers' lives. Nearly 30% admitted to committing a "minor crime such as shoplifting or anti-social behaviour" in the hope of being taken into custody for the night. And a fifth of those questioned said they had avoided being given bail or committed "an imprisonable offence with the express purpose of receiving a custodial sentence as a means to resolving their housing problems". Part of the difficulty, the report identifies, is that people were not getting the help they need and many cannot easily negotiate their way into, for example, a hostel. The result is a "hidden homelessness" where people sleep on friends' floors, in squats or on the streets. They also resort to extreme steps to put a roof over their heads.
Champion Briefs 150 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Universal Basic Income: UBI can't solve the housing problem, Europe shows.
Barker, Memphis. "If Housing’s Your Problem, Universal Basic Income Isn’t The Answer.". June 06, 2016. Web. February 06, 2017.
A lot of young people support a universal basic income. At the same time, many – especially those who live in London – see housing as the main obstacle to their own pursuit of happiness. For a moment, the two positions appear to sit well together. With everyone in the country provided with a “basic” sum of money by the Government, each of us would be better able to afford rents, or save up for a mortgage deposit. If the level was set at about £10,000 annually – close to what was proposed in the recent (soundly rejected) Swiss referendum – that would cover the average yearly rent outside the capital, and a good deal of it within London. Hey presto, we would all be baby boomers, or close to it, able to think about housing without the attendant nervous-system gymnastics. Certainly, many advocates have thought much harder about this. They argue that a universal basic income (UBI) would simplify the benefits system, protect against a wave of unemployment that may follow the rise of smarter robots, and free humans to choose the kind of work they do rather than live a life of drudgery. Nobody would object to those goals; still, no one has made a convincing case that the UBI would achieve them. The more grounded projections of a UBI tend to retain some administrative kinks (and even cutting the entirety of the Department for Work and Pensions’ budget for administration would save only £6bn a year, or £100 per citizen); it is still far from clear that automation will bring on mass unemployment (economies have survived seismic changes in the nature of work before); and, examined in a cold light, removing the financial incentive for some people to work as cleaners or binmen would not simultaneously take the rubbish from your front door. What is more, perhaps the most practical indication thus far of what the UBI would look like in the UK sets the annual level at £3,692. This projection by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) would allow young, healthy people to raise a deposit faster. But it is not a tremendous sum, and without a boost in housing supply the extra cash might serve only to raise prices. Meanwhile, disabled people and those who most rely most on the welfare state would lose out (someone on the higher level of PIP disability support receives around £7,000 per year directly, and that’s without taking into account the housing allowance, carer’s allowance and support to work, which push the total package up a great deal). The more exceptions to universality you grant to avoid making “losers” of, say, the chronically ill, the more the new system looks like the old, messy one. Problem of rent On housing, the principle of a universal, non-means-tested benefit comes under most strain. In fact, the complexities are such that the Citizens Income Trust leaves housing benefit out of its calculations. It’s the old “problem of rent”. A flat in Bethnal Green costs much more than one in Bognor Regis: set the basic income at a rate sufficient for Bethnal Green and those in Bognor Regis have a lot of additional money to play with. Set it at the Bognor Regis rate, and anyone living in Bethnal Green will have to get the movers in. On housing, the principle of a universal, non-means-tested benefit comes under most strain. In fact, the complexities are such that the Citizens Income Trust leaves housing benefit out of its calculations. It’s the old “problem of rent”. A flat in Bethnal Green
Champion Briefs 151 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Barker, Memphis. "If Housing’s Your Problem, Universal Basic Income Isn’t The Answer.". June 06, 2016. Web. February 06, 2017.
Champion Briefs 152 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Advantage CPs: Only a right to housing solves.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate 9:2 , 223-246. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
We certainly should have a right to decent, affordable food11 and health care (in the latter case, the costs, it should be noted, would be somewhat lower were housing-related detriments to good health eliminated); our recent failure to pass single-payer health reform legislation or otherwise provide these guarantees is a tragedy of massive proportions. It is not an either/or proposition, and movements for basic rights must coalesce into a more potent political force. Housing has a special character, not only because it consumes so large a portion of the household budget, especially for lower-income families, but because it is, as noted above, the central setting for so much of one’s personal and family life as well as the locus of mobility opportunities, access to community resources, and societal status (Hartman 1975). It would be wonderful if everyone in the United States had enough income to satisfy his or her needs in the market, but that goal is even less likely to be achieved than is the goal of decent housing for all. Widening income inequality and the structure of the job market make it hard to imagine how everyone could have enough income to pay for housing and other necessities. In fact, an increasingly large number of Americans are unable to attain a decent standard of living as prices outstrip incomes (Stone 1993). Moreover, that approach misreads the nature of the housing market. The profitmaximizing behavior of all actors in that market—landowners, developers, builders, materials suppliers, real estate brokers, landlords, even homeowners—at all points works against assuring that everyone has decent, affordable housing, absent a legally enforceable right to housing and explicit commitment of resources to its realization.
Champion Briefs 153 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The neg calls for a reformulation of demands outside the capitalist system that seeks to democratize control of urbanization processes through the right to the city.
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
Urbanization, we may conclude, has played a crucial role in the absorption of capital surpluses, at ever increasing geographical scales, but at the price of burgeoning processes of creative destruction that have dispossessed the masses of any right to the city whatsoever. The planet as building site collides with the ‘planet of slums’. [16] Periodically this ends in revolt, as in Paris in 1871 or the US after the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968. If, as seems likely, fiscal difficulties mount and the hitherto successful neoliberal, postmodernist and consumerist phase of capitalist surplus-absorption through urbanization is at an end and a broader crisis ensues, then the question arises: where is our 68 or, even more dramatically, our version of the Commune? As with the financial system, the answer is bound to be much more complex precisely because the urban process is now global in scope. Signs of rebellion are everywhere: the unrest in China and India is chronic, civil wars rage in Africa, Latin America is in ferment. Any of these revolts could become contagious. Unlike the fiscal system, however, the urban and peri-urban social movements of opposition, of which there are many around the world, are not tightly coupled; indeed most have no connection to each other. If they somehow did come together, what should they demand?
The answer to the last question is simple enough in principle: greater democratic control over the production and utilization of the surplus. Since the urban process is a major channel of surplus use, establishing democratic management over its urban deployment constitutes the right to the city. Throughout capitalist history, some of the surplus value has been taxed, and in social-democratic phases the proportion at the state’s disposal rose significantly. The neoliberal project over the last thirty years has been oriented towards privatizing that control. The data for all OECD countries show, however, that the state’s portion of gross output has been roughly constant since the 1970s.[17] The main achievement of the neoliberal assault, then, has been to prevent the public share from expanding as it did in the 1960s. Neoliberalism has also created new systems of governance that integrate state and corporate interests, and through the application of money power, it has ensured that the disbursement of the surplus through the state apparatus favours corporate capital and the upper classes in shaping the urban process. Raising the proportion of the surplus held by the state will only have a positive impact if the state itself is brought back under democratic control.
Increasingly, we see the right to the city falling into the hands of private or quasi-private interests. In New York City, for example, the billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is reshaping the city along lines favourable to developers, Wall Street and transnational capitalist-class elements, and promoting the city as an optimal location for high-value businesses and a fantastic destination for tourists. He is, in effect, turning Manhattan into one vast gated community for the rich. In Mexico City, Carlos Slim had the downtown streets re-cobbled to suit the tourist gaze. Not only affluent individuals exercise direct power. In the town of New Haven, strapped for resources for urban
Champion Briefs 154 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
Every January, the Office of the New York State Comptroller publishes an estimate of the total Wall Street bonuses for the previous twelve months. In 2007, a disastrous year for financial markets by any measure, these added up to $33.2 billion, only 2 per cent less than the year before. In mid-summer of 2007, the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank poured billions of dollars’ worth of short-term credit into the financial system to ensure its stability, and thereafter the Fed dramatically lowered interest rates or pumped in vast amounts of liquidity every time the Dow threatened to fall precipitously. Meanwhile, some two million people have been or are about to be made homeless by foreclosures. Many city neighbourhoods and even whole peri-urban communities in the US have been boarded up and vandalized, wrecked by the predatory lending practices of the financial institutions. This population is due no bonuses. Indeed, since foreclosure means debt forgiveness, which is regarded as income in the United States, many of those evicted face a hefty income-tax bill for money they never had in their possession. This asymmetry cannot be construed as anything less than a massive form of class confrontation. A ‘Financial Katrina’ is unfolding, which conveniently (for the developers) threatens to wipe out low-income neighbourhoods on potentially high-value land in many inner-city areas far more effectively and speedily than could be achieved through eminent domain.
We have yet, however, to see a coherent opposition to these developments in the twenty-first century. There are, of course, already a great many diverse social movements focusing on the urban question—from India and Brazil to China, Spain, Argentina and the United States. In 2001, a City Statute was inserted into the Brazilian Constitution, after pressure from social movements, to recognize the collective right to the city. [18] In the US, there have been calls for much of the $700 billion bail-out for financial institutions to be diverted into a Reconstruction Bank, which would help prevent foreclosures and fund efforts at neighbourhood revitalization and infrastructural renewal at municipal level. The urban crisis that is affecting millions would then be prioritized over the needs of big investors and financiers. Unfortunately the social movements are not strong enough or sufficiently mobilized to force through this solution. Nor have these movements yet converged on the singular aim of gaining greater control over the uses of the surplus—let alone over the conditions of its production.
At this point in history, this has to be a global struggle, predominantly with finance capital, for that is the scale at which urbanization processes now work. To be sure, the political task of organizing such a confrontation is difficult if not daunting. However, the opportunities are multiple because, as this brief history shows, crises repeatedly erupt around urbanization both locally and globally, and because the metropolis is now the point of massive collision—dare we call it class struggle?—
Champion Briefs 155 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
One step towards unifying these struggles is to adopt the right to the city as both working slogan and political ideal, precisely because it focuses on the question of who commands the necessary connection between urbanization and surplus production and use. The democratization of that right, and the construction of a broad social movement to enforce its will is imperative if the dispossessed are to take back the control which they have for so long been denied, and if they are to institute new modes of urbanization. Lefebvre was right to insist that the revolution has to be urban, in the broadest sense of that term, or nothing at all.
Champion Briefs 156 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Urbanization stabilizes global markets, perpetuating the system of capitalism.
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
Fast forward once again to our current conjuncture. International capitalism has been on a roller- coaster of regional crises and crashes—East and Southeast Asia in 1997–98; Russia in 1998; Argentina in 2001—but had until recently avoided a global crash even in the face of a chronic inability to dispose of capital surplus. What was the role of urbanization in stabilizing this situation? In the United States, it is accepted wisdom that the housing sector was an important stabilizer of the economy, particularly after the high-tech crash of the late 1990s, although it was an active component of expansion in the earlier part of that decade. The property market directly absorbed a great deal of surplus capital through the construction of city-centre and suburban homes and office spaces, while the rapid inflation of housing asset prices—backed by a profligate wave of mortgage refinancing at historically low rates of interest—boosted the US domestic market for consumer goods and services. American urban expansion partially steadied the global economy, as the US ran huge trade deficits with the rest of the world, borrowing around $2 billion a day to fuel its insatiable consumerism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But the urban process has undergone another transformation of scale. It has, in short, gone global. Property-market booms in Britain and Spain, as well as in many other countries, have helped power a capitalist dynamic in ways that broadly parallel what has happened in the United States. The urbanization of China over the last twenty years has been of a different character, with its heavy focus on infrastructural development, but it is even more important than that of the US. Its pace picked up enormously after a brief recession in 1997, to the extent that China has taken in nearly half the world’s cement supplies since 2000. More than a hundred cities have passed the one- million population mark in this period, and previously small villages, such as Shenzhen, have become huge metropolises of 6 to 10 million people. Vast infrastructural projects, including dams and highways—again, all debt-financed—are transforming the landscape. The consequences for the global economy and the absorption of surplus capital have been significant: Chile booms thanks to the high price of copper, Australia thrives and even Brazil and Argentina have recovered in part because of the strength of Chinese demand for raw materials.
Is the urbanization of China, then, the primary stabilizer of global capitalism today? The answer has to be a qualified yes. For China is only the epicentre of an urbanization process that has now become genuinely global, partly through the astonishing integration of financial markets that have used their flexibility to debt-finance urban development around the world. The Chinese central bank, for example, has been active in the secondary mortgage market in the US while Goldman Sachs was heavily involved in the surging property market in Mumbai, and Hong Kong capital has invested in Baltimore. In the midst of a flood of impoverished migrants, construction boomed in Johannesburg, Taipei, Moscow, as well as the cities in the core capitalist countries, such as London and Los Angeles. Astonishing if not criminally absurd mega-urbanization projects have emerged in the Middle East in places such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi, mopping up the surplus arising from oil wealth in the most conspicuous, socially unjust and environmentally wasteful ways possible.
Champion Briefs 157 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Current federal rules are insufficient for true equality between heterosexual and same-sex couples.
Armstrong, Carlie. "SLOW PROGRESS: NEW FEDERAL RULES ONLY BEGIN TO ADDRESS HOUSING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENT." The Modern American. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Although HUD’s new rule is a step in the right direction, its scope is limited. The rule against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity only applies to HUD-funded housing.65 LGBT individuals and couples who wish to live in privately owned and insured housing may still face discrimination if they live in a state or city that does not protect them from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.66 LGBT individuals and couples may also continue to experience discrimination in obtaining mortgages to purchase their own homes, as evidenced in the Michigan test.67 However, if an LGBT individual or couple were applying for a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the HUD rule would offer protection.68 Recognizing the remaining obstacles to true equality in the housing realm, former-Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced bills in the Senate and House of Representatives that would amend the Fair Housing Act to include protection on the basis of sexual orientation.69 Unfortunately, neither bill was voted out of its respective committee.70 In 2010, Secretary Donovan announced a national study to determine the impact of housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.71 The results have not yet been announced;72 however, such a large-scale endeavor will hopefully help propel the federal governments efforts forward.
Champion Briefs 158 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Libertarian NC: Homeless people are not free to do wrong: This is a question-begging approach to establishing property rights.
Waldron, Jeremy. "HOMELESSNESS AND THE ISSUE OF FREEDOM." 39 UCLA L. Rev. 1991-1992. February 10, 1992. Web. February 06, 2017.
Above all, by building the morality of a given property system (rights, duties, and the current distribution) into the concept of freedom, the moralizing approach precludes the use of that concept as a basis for arguing about property. If when we use the words "free" and "unfree," we are already assuming that it is wrong for A to use something that belongs to B, we cannot appeal to "freedom" to explain why B's ownership of the resource is justified. We cannot even extol our property system as the basis of a "free" society, for such a boast would be nothing more than tautological. It is true that if we have independent grounds of justification for our private property system, then we can say that interfering with property rights is wrong without appealing to the idea of freedom. In that case, there is nothing question-begging about the claim that preventing someone from violating property rights does not count as a restriction on his freedom. But the price of this strategy is high. It not only transforms our conception of freedom into a moralized definition of positive liberty (so that the only freedom that is relevant is the freedom to do what is right), but it also excludes the concept of freedom altogether from the debate about the justification of property rights. Since most theorists of property do not want to deprive themselves of the concept of freedom as a resource in that argument, the insistence that the enforcement of property rules should not count as a restriction on freedom is, at the very least, a serious strategic mistake.
Champion Briefs 159 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Consumer choice is important consideration in housing first practices.
Pauly, Bernadette. "Housing And Harm Reduction: What Is The Role Of Harm Reduction In Addressing Homelessness?" International Journal of Drug Policy. March 15, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
Access to permanent low-cost housing options is critical to the success of Housing First. Housing is considered affordable when it costs 30% or less of household income (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2009). Increasing the supply of affordable housing is a key area for action by the GVCEH and the availability and affordability of housing as well as waitlists for social housing and costs of living are monitored annually (Pauly, Thompson, Kerr Suthin, & Jackson, 2011; Pauly, Jackson, Wynn-Williams, & Stiles, 2012). Consumer choice is fundamental to Housing First (Tsemberis, Moran, Shinn, Asmusen, & Shern, 2003; Tsemberis et al., 2004). Clients should be able to give informed consent to participate or refuse to participate in any harm reduction, treatment or support service without impact on their housing status. Clearly, it is impor- tant to ensure availability of affordable housing and a meaningful menu of housing options with tolerance of a range of substance use. Balancing abstinence and non- abstinence based housing is critical within a range of affordable housing options. This could include market housing, project based housing with built in harm reduc- tion services or housing connected to treatment, as long as clients can choose the housing option that suits them.
Champion Briefs 160 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Blues is the third reconstruction- a means to reclaim holy sites of blackness, the struggle in New Orleans is a struggle for freedom.
Garrett, Daniel G. "The Business Case For Ending Homelessness: Having A Home Improves Health, Reduces Healthcare Utiliza." Am Health Drug Benefits. January 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
Distinctive regional identities and relations are constructed, and reproduced, through movements and countermovements. With one-thousand persons dead and with hundreds of thousands either unemployed, homeless, evicted, and scattered among forty-four states, New Orleans stands at the crossroads. The now dominant social philosophy has been used to wage an attack on the very programs needed to bring the city back to what it once was. Yet, there is no going back. The “Bring New Orleans Back” Committee formed by Mayor Nagin is top heavy with corporate leaders who are driven to build a city reflective of their desires. They and others in Congress view the disaster as an opportunity to remake the city without its black majority. Excluded from this new disaster in the making are working-class African American voices, visions, and movements. Why should anyone want to live in, or return to, a place of great suffering? This question has haunted the millions of African Americans who migrated out of, and then back to, the South during the twentieth century in search of refuge. It was addressed by Louisiana’s State Poet Laureate at the American Studies Association’s Annual Meeting in November 2005. New Orleans native Brenda Marie Osbey insisted that residents should return to their homes; it was the government, not the city, which treated them poorly. To paraphrase several of her poems, she told the audience that New Orleans is both a city where “the Saints walk in Congo time” and where “death is a road upon which walks those we loved and those we loved not long enough.” It is a place where the “slaves of the city” still ask “who will betray us today.” Through Osbey’s works, we understand that New Orleans is a city whose people and their ancestors will call forth the dawn of a new world.26 In many regions of Africa, religious ceremonies were held in sacred groves and forests. This practice was carried across the Atlantic to sacred bush arbors, woods, and rivers of North America. With urbanization, churches emerged in massive edifices and on street corners. Both became sacred. Several places became so important to the meaning of blackness that they became churches and cathedrals themselves. Then there are the Mecca and Jerusalem of African American culture, the Sea Islands and the Mississippi Delta, which receive humble pilgrims generation after generation. New Orleans is the Black Vatican. The Ado Bambara, Chamba, Canga, Congo/Angola, Fon, Ibo Maninga, Mina, Wolof, and Yoruba reconstituted in Louisiana were known for their resistance to all forms of bondage and defeatism. With the assistance of Native American allies they fought numerous wars against the French, the Spanish, and the American plantocracy. Many became maroons in the swamps, forests, and cities. The center of their survival was the communal gumbo pot. This stew came to symbolize the sacred struggle for dignity and the ability to make something out of nothing, to make freedom out of slavery. After the Civil War, these communities pushed the blues agenda, the Reconstruction agenda, and its endless definitions of freedom. Tragedy befell New Orleans, the blood of a heroic people flowed through its streets. What emerged next was a sound known
Champion Briefs 161 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Garrett, Daniel G. "The Business Case For Ending Homelessness: Having A Home Improves Health, Reduces Healthcare Utiliza." Am Health Drug Benefits. January 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 162 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Rights discourse specifically in the case of women's access to housing aids the fight against subordination.
Farha, Leilani. "Is There A Women In The House? Women And The Right To Adequate Housing." A Resource Guide to Women’s International Human Rights. February 10, 1998. Web. February 07, 2017.
To date, women’s housing conditions and experiences have largely been described in terms of their “needs” as opposed to their “rights”. Drawing on the work of Philip Alston, Scott Leckie, a leading housing rights activist argues that rights discourse enhances the level of importance of a social demand, noting that the characterization of a specific goal as a human right “elevates it above the rank and file of competing societal goals, gives it a degree of immunity from challenge, and generally endows it with an aura of timelessness, absoluteness and universal have the force of law behind them. It is more difficult for a government to ignore legal obligations Rights discourse and its societal acceptance also offers a ready and powerful means of self- definition, a means that disadvantaged groups find alluring: To say that blacks never fully believed in rights is true; yet it is also true that blacks believed in them so much and so hard that we gave them life where there was none before. We held onto them, put the hope of them into our wombs, and mothered them - not just the notion of them. We nurtured rights and gave rights life.... But if it took this long to breathe life into a form whose shape had already been forged by society and which is therefore idealistically if not ideologically accessible, imagine how long would be the struggle without that sense of definition without the The symbolic power of rights discourse for women living under adverse housing conditions was evident at Habitat II. At a public hearing on global housing rights violations, Kurdish, Indian, Tibetan, Brazilian, Mexican, American and Japanese women testified to their housing experiences and each woman, in her own way, employed rights language in telling her story. t The witness from Japan, a woman from Kobe, described her experiences in securing accommodation after the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995. She was compelled to live in temporary shelter in a community centre, with many other families. This “evacuation centre” was located at some distance from her original residence. At the public hearing, she complained that in being located far away from her prior residence, her right to live in her place of choice, that is, close to her friends and family had been violated. She also stated that her right to privacy had been violated in the evacuation centre as there were no walls separating her living space from that of others. t A Kurdish woman, having been forced to migrate from her village to the mega-city, Istanbul, after her house and village were completely destroyed by fire, stated that she has a right to return to her original home and land. t An African-American woman from Atlanta, Georgia stated that many black residents of Atlanta, particularly the poor, had suffered housing rights violations as they had been evicted from their homes to accommodate for the summer Olympics. After listening to these women’s testimonies, there was little doubt that women from around the world - even those without legal knowledge or training - often find rights discourse comfortable and appropriate as a means of articulating what they experience as injustice and as a means of seeking redress for their individual and collective housing experiences.
Champion Briefs 163 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Farha, Leilani. "Is There A Women In The House? Women And The Right To Adequate Housing." A Resource Guide to Women’s International Human Rights. February 10, 1998. Web. February 07, 2017.
If it is possible and appropriate to articulate women’s housing concerns in the language of rights, it is but a short step to the idea that the right to housing must itself be articulated from the perspective of women. Simply put, the right to housing and its attached protections are particularly relevant for women, especially in light of the fact that over recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of women-headed households globally, which of course has resulted in a close relationship between women and housing, where a woman’s survival is integrally linked to the state of her housing.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 164 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Reject the international law definition and current political interpretation because it is infected by a patriarchal worldview.
Farha, Leilani. "Is There A Women In The House? Women And The Right To Adequate Housing." A Resource Guide to Women’s International Human Rights. February 10, 1998. Web. February 07, 2017.
While the claims of women to the right to housing are burgeoning, the dimensions of the right to housing are rapidly evolving at the international level with very little input directly from women. As such, the international right to housing, though crucial to women, does not take full account of women’s insights, experiences and lives. When women are excluded from housing policy, so too are their interests and it is because of this exclusion that the right to housing must be designers within governments and international agencies may believe they are “planning for people” but there is an almost universal tendency by these professionals to assume that the household is nuclear in structure and that within the family there is a clear sexual division of labour in which the man of the family is the breadwinner and is engaged in productive work outside the home, while the woman takes overall responsibility for the child rearing and domestic work within the household. Implicit in this may be the erroneous assumption that within the household there is equal control over resources and power of decision-making the right to housing is regarded as a women’s human right, there is no reason to believe that these same assumptions will not be used to define and implement the right to housing. If these assumptions remain unchallenged, structural change that rectifies the fundamental inequality and power imbalance between men and women will never be realized. And so, it is clear that to exclude women from the struggle to define the right to housing - a right in which they obviously have a very large stake -may keep society further away from the solutions that are actually most affected by housing should actively participate in the construction of the meaning of the right to housing.
Champion Briefs 165 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Even the weaker exclusionary policies have time-based restrictions that prevent access to housing of those with criminal records.
Carey, Corinne. "ARTICLE: NO SECOND CHANCE: PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS DENIED ACCESS TO PUBLIC HOUSING." 36 U. Tol. L. Rev. 545. November 01, 2004. Web. February 07, 2017.
In addition to determining what sort of conduct is a sufficient basis for exclusion, PHAs also determine, for different categories of offenses, the "exclusion period" - the length of time applicants must have been crime-free following such offenses before their housing applications will be accepted. The exclusion periods appear to have been arbitrarily chosen, and are frequently excessively long. PHA officials could rarely provide us with an explanation for the particular length of any exclusion period nor could we discern any empirical explanation for the great variance in exclusion periods across the country; the differences appear simply to reflect philosophical and policy perspectives. The chart below offers a sense of the variance in exclusion periods and, more importantly, the remarkable length of some of them. In New York City, for example, a person convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana and sentenced to six months probation would be ineligible for housing for five years. In Sarasota, Florida, a single drug misdemeanor renders a person ineligible for public housing for four years. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, someone convicted of a violent felony can be ineligible for life - have prior offenses in Austin, Texas - no matter how minor - are excluded by the city housing authority for seven years, and by the county housing authority for ten.
Champion Briefs 166 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Empirical evidence proves that a statutory right to housing reduces marginalization.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
On the other hand, international evidence suggests that enforceable statutory rights frameworks, such as those pertaining in the UK, make it far more difficult for social landlords to exclude the most vulnerable households from the social rented sector, as happens in a number of European countries including Sweden (Fitzpatrick and Stephens, 2007). Moreover, Tars and Egleson (2009) argue that legal rights to housing for homeless people (particularly the very strong version of such rights found in Scotland) provide benefits not only for the direct recipients, 117 but also for the wider population as a result of the ‘psychological cushion of knowing there is a social safety net [which] is an essential component of maintaining basic human dignity’ (p.213).
Champion Briefs 167 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Even if the human right to housing doesn't seem immediately feasible, we ought to embrace it because of its necessity for evolving standards of justice.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
Publishing an article advocating a right or entitlement to decent, affordable housing at a time of shrinking support for housing subsidies and a lesser role for public housing,1 recent congressional proposals to abolish the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),2 and widespread abandonment of essential federal ‘‘safety net’’ programs—on top of the rising incidence of poverty, widening income and wealth gaps, and intensifying racial backlash—could well be regarded as futile, quixotic, even bizarre. But the fact that establishing such a right does not appear to be immediately feasible in no way detracts from the argument that our society ought to embrace it. I proceed from a normative, philosophical stance that asserts the wisdom and justice of such a right, as well as our society’s clear ability to achieve it. After all, what have ‘‘rights’’ been historically in the United States if not an evolving societal sense of justice and entitlement, won, always, in political struggle (frequently undergirded by various intellectual efforts)? The right of slaves to be free of bondage was won in that way, via armed struggle and political action that produced amendments to our Constitution. The right of women to vote has a similar (albeit less violent) history. Workers won the right to organize, and federal legislation with such guarantees was passed to codify that right. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s produced a set of legal rights that did not previously exist and changed profoundly at least the public culture and practices with regard to race. In all these instances, the appeal was to a higher sense of justice, to fundamental principles of a democracy, and to foundational documents embodied in the creation of our country. The content of rights is thus a constantly evolving drama, as those lacking what they perceive as fundamental entitlements, together with their intellectual and political supporters, raise new issues, make new demands, and organize politically to assert and bring into being new elements to society’s understanding and acceptance of what everyone should have. This is distinct from, albeit related to, the concept of ‘‘needs.’’ Needs, standards, and the demands they generate bear a relation to concepts of and struggles around rights. But rights have an independent life, in origin, rationale, and political dynamic.
Champion Briefs 168 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
People ought to have a right to decent, affordable housing. This is essential to reduce the risks of disease and overcrowding, as well as address racial discrimination.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
There are of course practical, cost-benefit reasons to advocate for a right to decent, affordable housing. For those living in inadequate housing conditions they include, at a minimum, the multiple health and safety problems that arise from lead poisoning, rat bites, fires, asphyxiation (from poorly ventilated heating systems), communicable diseases, asthma (Rosenstreich et al. 1997), other forms of sickness, and electric shock, as well as the occasional dramatic event, such as the collapse of an entire building.3 Overcrowding (apart from the physical condition of the space) can produce or exacerbate stress and family tensions, as well as disease (Nossiter 1995). Poor neighborhood conditions are often associated with crime and a lack of personal safety. Housing affordability problems clearly have an impact on diet,4 and as a New York Times headline put it, for poor Americans, there is ‘‘A Growing Choice: Housing or Food’’ (DeParle 1991).5 Excessive housing costs also affect one’s ability to secure other of life’s basics, as well as various amenities that most of society takes for granted. Segregation, discrimination, and isolation based on race and ethnicity, as well as on class, deprive residents of access to employment, economic development opportunities, and public facilities, and/or result in less good opportunities and services—a phenomenon Massey and Denton (1993) label ‘‘hypersegregation.’’ Imperfect as the data may be, there are ways of measuring these impacts.
Champion Briefs 169 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
People ought to have a right to decent, affordable housing. This is essential to reduce the risks of disease and overcrowding, as well as address racial discrimination.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
There are of course practical, cost-benefit reasons to advocate for a right to decent, affordable housing. For those living in inadequate housing conditions they include, at a minimum, the multiple health and safety problems that arise from lead poisoning, rat bites, fires, asphyxiation (from poorly ventilated heating systems), communicable diseases, asthma (Rosenstreich et al. 1997), other forms of sickness, and electric shock, as well as the occasional dramatic event, such as the collapse of an entire building.3 Overcrowding (apart from the physical condition of the space) can produce or exacerbate stress and family tensions, as well as disease (Nossiter 1995). Poor neighborhood conditions are often associated with crime and a lack of personal safety. Housing affordability problems clearly have an impact on diet,4 and as a New York Times headline put it, for poor Americans, there is ‘‘A Growing Choice: Housing or Food’’ (DeParle 1991).5 Excessive housing costs also affect one’s ability to secure other of life’s basics, as well as various amenities that most of society takes for granted. Segregation, discrimination, and isolation based on race and ethnicity, as well as on class, deprive residents of access to employment, economic development opportunities, and public facilities, and/or result in less good opportunities and services—a phenomenon Massey and Denton (1993) label ‘‘hypersegregation.’’ Imperfect as the data may be, there are ways of measuring these impacts.
Champion Briefs 170 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The human and financial costs of inadequate housing are borne by everyone in society.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
A second issue needing quantification is how these various costs suffered by residents of inadequate housing translate into costs borne by the rest of the community and society. The health problems of poor people caused and exacerbated by poor housing conditions require massive subsidies through Medicaid and other public sources. Emergency fire and police costs, paid for largely via local taxes, are disproportionately high for slum neighborhoods. The human and financial costs of crime affect everyone, directly or indirectly, as victims and potential victims. Homelessness is accompanied by disproportionate violence of various types (Hombs 1994). The productivity lost as a result of the multiple impacts of poor housing conditions negatively affects the standard of living for others. Educational deficits attributable to inadequate housing harm the entire society.6 The dominant way we now deal with those suf-fering the most extreme housing problem, homelessness—overnight shelter and emergency services—requires public expenditures that far exceed the costs of a more rational and humane housing approach, a conundrum explainable only in complex sociological and political terms.7
Champion Briefs 171 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The right to housing is a prerequisite to political rights and participation in a democratic society.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
Beyond these mostly tangible, and in theory measurable, practical impacts lies the notion that political participation and political rights, particularly in a democratic society, are closely dependent on satisfaction of basic economic rights.8 As Michael Stone (1993, 314) writes, a right to decent, affordable housing ‘‘builds as well upon recognition that the political and civil rights for which we have struggled and continue to struggle have little practical meaning or utility for those among us whose material existence is precarious.’’ The issue here is dignity as well, in the sense of asserting and receiving full respect for membership in one’s community and in the society at large (Miller 1993). Suffrage in the United States has had a history of property ownership prerequisites—a situation not unrelated to the disenfranchisement of homeless persons for lack of a ‘‘real’’ address, an issue that has recently been successfully fought in the courts.9
Champion Briefs 172 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Housing ought to be a right because it is central to one's life, determining access to all other opportunities in life.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
In short, because housing is so central to one’s life, it merits attaining the status of a right. It is at the core of one’s social and personal life, determining the kinds of influences and relationships one has and access to key opportunities and services (education, employment, health care). Housing also is an outward sign of status and affects the health and well-being of the surrounding community. Probably only those who have experienced how hard it is to have personal and family stability or land a job without a home, how hard it is to keep up with schoolwork in an overcrowded apartment, how much the sheer pressure to make the rent can overwhelm the rest of one’s life—experiences largely foreign to the housing policy analysts, academics, and bureaucrats who read and write articles such as this—can fully comprehend just how central decent, affordable housing is, or might be, and how limiting and burdensome is its absence.
Champion Briefs 173 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Rights are not an either-or proposition. The right to housing is essential to the realization of other rights, like the right to decent, affordable food and healthcare.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
We certainly should have a right to decent, affordable food and health care (in the latter case, the costs, it should be noted, would be somewhat lower were housing-related detriments to good health eliminated); our recent failure to pass single-payer health reform legislation or otherwise provide these guarantees is a tragedy of massive proportions. It is not an either/or proposition, and movements for basic rights must coalesce into a more potent political force. Housing has a special character, not only because it consumes so large a portion of the household budget, especially for lower-income families, but because it is, as noted above, the central setting for so much of one’s personal and family life as well as the locus of mobility opportunities, access to community resources, and societal status (Hartman 1975). It would be wonderful if everyone in the United States had enough income to satisfy his or her needs in the market, but that goal is even less likely to be achieved than is the goal of decent housing for all. Widening income inequality and the structure of the job market make it hard to imagine how everyone could have enough income to pay for housing and other necessities. In fact, an increasingly large number of Americans are unable to attain a decent standard of living as prices outstrip incomes (Stone 1993). Moreover, that approach misreads the nature of the housing market. The profitmaximizing behavior of all actors in that market—landowners, developers, builders, materials suppliers, real estate brokers, landlords, even homeowners—at all points works against assuring that everyone has decent, affordable housing, absent a legally enforceable right to housing and explicit commitment of resources to its realization.
Champion Briefs 174 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The United States has a long history of treating housing, in some respects, as a right.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
Thus, the United States has a long history of providing a series of rights that prepare and assist individuals to participate in the nation’s economic order. Throughout the nineteenth century, educational and land reforms provided citizens with an expanding horizon of social and economic opportunities. For example, the 1862 Homestead Act, under which any settler could receive 160 acres of surveyed land after five years’ residence and payment of a $26 to $34 registration fee, exemplifies America’s willingness to directly transfer material resources to ordinary people (Robbins 1976; Warner 1972). As the twenty-first century approaches, we need to consider what equivalent economic and material rights an individual is entitled to. In the meantime, there remains no entitlement to any of the direct government housing programs: public housing,15 Section 8, Section 202, and so on. (This is true for civilians. The military’s family housing program does incorporate, as part of the benefits structure, and only for those eligible by terms of pay grade and length of service, an entitlement to either free housing or a housing allowance [Hartman and Drayer 1990].) Something approaching a right to housing exists in other government programs, albeit hidden and largely unexplored in the literature. The temporary housing assistance offered under the disaster aid programs of the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), although not that much money is involved and much of it is reimbursed by insurance proceeds, is in effect an entitlement.16 Federal aid for foster care— in effect a houser of last resort for children from troubled families17—may also be legitimately described as an entitlement; almost 80 percent of the federal government’s $4.7 billion child welfare expenditures go to foster care (Russakoff 1998.) Finally, and perhaps most important, the significant portion of Medicaid (an entitlement) expenditure set aside for nursing home care constitutes a quasiright to housing based on age (Redfoot 1993).
Champion Briefs 175 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Affordaibility is a key element of the right to housing.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
How would a right to housing work? Some preliminary thoughts Beyond the analytical issue of whether there should be a right to decent, affordable housing, a great variety of concrete questions must be answered with respect to how such a right should be de- fined and implemented.24 What are the components of this right? I would include affordability, physical quality of the unit, and the social and physical characteristics of the neighborhood environment. What should the affordability standard be? Some version of Michael Stone’s (1993) ‘‘shelter poverty’’ standard is best, taking into account household size, household income, and the cost of nonshelter basics, as opposed to a fixed percentage of income.25
Champion Briefs 176 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
We must question the for-profit system of housing which dominates how housing is provided in the United States. The negative may decry government interference, ignoring how virtually all housing in the US benefits from some kind of government subsidy.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
There needs to be a recognition, and public education to bring about that recognition, that attaining a right to decent, affordable housing requires major changes in the current housing system with regard to ownership, financing, and production. Merely throwing more money at the problem under the existing system—as with Section 8—can have only limited results. The existing system of production, ownership, and finance has shown itself incapable of meeting the needs of an ever-growing portion of the population. We must ask honestly whether the for-profit system of production, management, and finance that overwhelmingly dominates the way housing is provided in the United States is consistent with a right to decent, affordable housing; or whether, alternatively, this goal can be reached only through conscious and large-scale development of public and other nonprofit (nonmarket), permanently affordable units—both new and units converted from the existing stock to this system. Part of this public education process involves stressing the ways in which and extent to which virtually all housing in the United States currently benefits from some kind of indirect or direct government subsidy. Op-eds, study groups, yearlong education projects such as those done by the League of Women Voters, and many other creative ways of teaching the American public about good and bad housing policy are a necessary foundation for basic change of the type advocated in this article.
Champion Briefs 177 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The onus is on the negative to prove why we should let present levels of inequality and deprivation continue. They must provide an alternative to the problems of homelessness.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
A challenge Those who reject a right to decent, affordable housing must ask themselves what future there is for owners and renters—middle-, moderate-, and low-income—if existing trends continue, as they surely must absent serious and radical intervention. And so, I end with a challenge. Let those who do not believe that decent, affordable housing should be a right in American society as we approach the end of the twentieth century put forward their views and what they are based on. Let them also play out the scenario of current conditions and trends: What happens to our society if present levels of inequality, discrimination, and deprivation are allowed to continue and intensify? Let them answer why it is better to have tax breaks for the rich and B-2 bombers we don’t need, rather than a society where fundamental economic and living standards, as well as political and civil rights, are guaranteed to all. Responses to some of the detailed considerations as to what this right should and would mean in practice, as well as how we might move in this direction, also are welcome. But the dialogue at the first level should be about the concept itself. Let it begin.
Champion Briefs 178 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The right to housing would require efforts to remove discriminatory barriers to housing, as well as ensuring that housing is adequate, affordable, decent, and secure.
Green, Shelby. "Imagining A Right To Housing, Lying In The Interstices." Pace Law Faculty Publications. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
The lower federal courts have taken from Lindsey the conclusion that there is no right to have the government provide a decent, safe and affordable place to live. 5 But, as I have asserted throughout this Article, the provision of housing would not be the sole consequence of a right to housing. Instead, a new conception of a "right to housing" would require efforts by the state to strike down arbitrary and discriminatory barriers to housing; would give rise to a presumption of validity for governmental measures undertaken to provide housing; and would subject to a heavier burden of justification measures that are ostensibly neutral but operate to deny housing. To be sure, it might also require the state to undertake measures to ensure adequate, affordable, decent, and secure housing to all in need. In this last conception, there would inevitably be some thorny issues that would need resolution. Would the needy have standing to sue to force the government to provide housing? Who is eligible for such housing; what quality of housing is required; can the right ever be terminated? However, these issues would not be insurmountable as courts frequently make such line-drawing decisions to protect and define the other express and penumbral rights.359 What is important is that we bear in mind that every society is necessarily an amalgam of its constituent economic components, and that every society has a duty to intervene in those areas that will be socially protective and collectively useful. 36 0 We must go beyond merely imagining such a society.
Champion Briefs 179 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The right to housing is a requisite for other rights.
Green, Shelby. "Imagining A Right To Housing, Lying In The Interstices." Pace Law Faculty Publications. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
Thinking deeply about the reasoning for recognizing penumbral rights-to privacy, to travel, to court-appointed counsel, to physical access to courts-that is, as necessary in the fulfillment of the liberty interest, then it is difficult to understand why the Court stopped short in San Antonio and Lindsey. While the connection between privacy and travel with liberty seems large and direct, a more substantial ingredient for liberty than shelter is hard to imagine. Participating in elections, borrowing books from the public library, enrolling one's children in the local kindergarten-all of these rest upon having a home. The interest in stability (for work, family, and educational opportunities) all require a home. The interest in avoiding spending inordinate time trying to secure housing as opposed to time developing broader capacities for personal and societal enrichment is great. The right to privacy and hence liberty-for engaging in intimate relations; teaching and interacting with children; finding solace--cannot be realized without a sphere of one's own.
Champion Briefs 180 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The human right to housing is codified under international law.
Tars, Eric. "Housing As A Human Right." National Low Income Housing Coalition. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
The Universal Declaration is a non-binding declaration, so the right to housing was codified in binding treaty law in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966. The United States signed, but has not ratified, the ICESCR, and, thus, is only required to uphold the “object and purpose” of the treaty, but is not strictly legally bound. However, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1992, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in 1994. Both recognize the right to be free from discrimination, including in housing, on the basis of race, gender, disability, and other status. The U.S. also ratified the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 1994, protecting individuals from torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including the criminalization of homelessness. The United States signed another declaratory document, the Habitat Agenda, in 1996, committing itself to more than 100 housing-related goals. In 2006, the United States approved the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on DevelopmentBased Evictions, which provides useful standards for ensuring participation of poor and minority groups in zoning and development decisions affecting them.
Champion Briefs 181 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Other countries have succeeded at substantially reducing homelessness, and that's because they recognize the right to housing.
Tars, Eric. "Housing As A Human Right." National Low Income Housing Coalition. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
Other countries have made significant headway in making the right to housing real and legally enforceable. Other countries—including France, Scotland, and South Africa—have adopted a right to housing in their constitutions or legislation, leading to improved housing conditions. In Scotland, for example, the Homeless Act of 2003 includes the right for all homeless persons to be immediately housed and the right to long-term, supportive housing for as long as it is needed. The law also includes an individual right to sue if one believes these rights are not being met, and requires jurisdictions to plan for development of adequate affordable housing stock. Complementary policies include the right to purchase public housing units and automatic referrals by banks to foreclosure prevention programs to help people remain in their homes. All these elements work together to ensure the right to housing is upheld. Although implementation challenges remain, in general, homelessness in Scotland is a brief, rare, and nonrecurring phenomenon.
Champion Briefs 182 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Harms: Targeting homelessness is a prerequisite to solving health problems.
Carson, Jacqueline. "Advantages Of Housing First Rehousing Strategy For The Chronically Homeless." Research Seminar. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
With over 550,000 homeless individuals each night in the United States, homelessness has become a massive public health problem; individuals experiencing homelessness are subject to physical violence, mental health issues, increased incarceration, and sexual assaults. Since the 1980s, homelessness increased in numbers across the nation. It has left policy makers with the question of “how are we going to care for all of these individuals?” Over the past few decades, the treatment first Continuum of Care methodology of rehousing has been the predominant answer to this question. This methodology assumes that the cause of each individual’s homelessness is the health deficits that plague them. Thus, the health problems are addressed first, and must be consistently maintained in order to reach permanent housing. Another rehousing methodology, the Housing First model, operates under a different assumption. These programs presume that the state of homelessness itself exacerbates the health problems that each individual is experiencing. Thus, housing is targeted first. Housing First models simply give the homeless a home without conditions of treatment compliance or sobriety. The Housing First concept is simple but it works. Over the course of this paper, it is argued that the Housing First model is the better of the two methodologies for rehousing the homeless. This is because it effectively ends homelessness, is ethically superior, and is more cost efficient.
Champion Briefs 183 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Harms: Homelessness is an intersectional problem in the United States.
Carson, Jacqueline. "Advantages Of Housing First Rehousing Strategy For The Chronically Homeless." Research Seminar. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
University of California Berkeley Professor of Economics, Erin Mansur, described homelessness as “the most visible social problem in contemporary US metropolitan areas” (Mansur et al. 2001). While the problem is most striking in urban areas, homelessness is everywhere. All races, genders, and ages can experience homelessness. While the homeless vary in characteristics, over 40% of the homeless suffer a disability (mental or physical) and abuse substances (Henry et al. 2015). Research from point-in-time estimates finds that 38 percent of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26 percent abused drugs, making substance abuse much more common among homeless people than the general population (National Coalition for the Homeless 2009). The homeless in America live an extremely stressful existence. They are exposed to the extremes of weather, are vulnerable to violence, placed in life threatening situations, are harassed, and have acute and premature mortality (Barrow et al. 1999)1. The constant exposure to stressors leads to, as Hopper et al. 1997 claims, “adverse effects on physical, psychological, social, economics, legal, and spiritual well being; surviving day to day tasks become challenging.” There is great variation in the incidence of homelessness but research suggests on any given night in the United States as of January 2015, there are 564,708 people experiencing homelessness. 69 percent of these people stay in a homeless residential program (emergency shelter, transitional housing, etc.) and 31 percent are in unsheltered locations. 206,268 are people in families with children - 36 percent of all homeless people. 23 percent of all homeless individuals are children under the age of 18. Nine percent are between the ages of 18 and 24 while 68 percent were 25 years or older. Approximately 8 percent of the homeless are veterans, 10% of which are women. 15% (83,170) experience chronic homelessness, defined as an individual who has a certifiable disease and has been continuously homeless over a period of two years. 12,105 of the chronically homeless are in families with children2. A vast majority of the homeless grew up in poverty themselves; low-income households have limited resources and affordable housing is not abundant, making them more prone to homelessness. (National Coalition to End Homelessness, 2015, Burt & Cohen). 11.2 million extremely low-income households compete for 7.3 million units affordable to them. Further, only a quarter of eligible very low-income households received rental assistance (Charette et al. 2015). It is important to note that all of these statistics are probably underestimates. The population is hard to track and experiences a lot of turnover.
Champion Briefs 184 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Topicality/Framing Card: HUD Definition of Homeless.
Carson, Jacqueline. "Advantages Of Housing First Rehousing Strategy For The Chronically Homeless." Research Seminar. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
For policy purposes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) utilizes a much narrower definition of homeless individuals. HUD defines homeless individuals as “a person sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation (e.g. living on the streets) OR living in a homeless emergency shelter”. There are many homeless individuals that are marginalized and excluded from services due to the definitions. HUD’s definition means that an individual is not considered homeless if they are staying on a friend’s or family member’s couch and have no other alternative. A man may sleep at the friend’s house once a week and outdoors for the rest of the week, yet if he is surveyed the night after he stayed at the friends house, he would not be considered homeless. This is just one example of how HUD’s formal definition excludes many marginally, insecurely, and unstably housed individuals from accessing help and services. Further, as defined by HUD, an individual experiencing chronic homelessness is defined as “either 1) an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, OR 2) an unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.3 ” The disabling condition must be verified by a professional before they are eligible for any services geared towards chronic homelessness. While other forms of homelessness exist, this paper will focus on the HUD definition of “chronic homeless.”
Champion Briefs 185 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Framing Card: Conditions on housing are immoral under Kantian ethical principles.
Carson, Jacqueline. "Advantages Of Housing First Rehousing Strategy For The Chronically Homeless." Research Seminar. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
Housing First offers a Kantian advantage over treatment first Continuum of Care models - it emphasizes autonomy instead of heteronomy. Heteronomous will is “one in obedience to rules of action that have been legislated externally to it. Such a will is always submitting itself to some other end, and the principles of its action will invariably be hypothetical imperatives urging that it act in such a way as to receive pleasure, appease the moral sense, or seek personal perfection” (Kant: Morality 2011). Autonomous will is “self-legislating.” Moral obligations here are imposed simply by oneself and not by external forces. Kant argues that heteronomy limits human freedom which is a basic tenant to morality. Housing First values the autonomy of their clients as exemplified most by not placing restrictions and limitations to obtaining and maintaining housing. Treatment first Continuum of Care models, on the other hand, seem to emphasize heteronomy by forcing their clients to comply with treatment and maintain their sobriety. It is incredibly immoral to impose standards of proper rehabilitation, as Continuum of Care models do. Instead, Housing First programs allow for each client’s autonomy in their own recovery process. Its founder Sam Tsemberis, says that the program incorporates “a stages of change model and attempts to develop plans with consumers that are consistent with their stage of treatment readiness.” This goal setting allows them to “learn to make better decisions in the future. Experiential learning, in which consumers are supported in making and observing the consequences of their decisions, is one of the cornerstones of recovery” says Tsemberis.
Champion Briefs 186 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Topicality Card: Home and house have distinct meanings.
Akesson, Bree. "The Right To Home: Domicide As A Violation Of Child And Family Rights In The Context Of Political Vi." CHILDREN & SOCIETY. August 10, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
Scholars have offered a distinction between the terms ‘house’ and ‘home’ (Blunt and Dowling, 2006; Harker, 2009). Generally, ‘house’ implies a built structure, whereas ‘home’ implies something deeper and more meaningful. A house becomes a home only when deeper meanings, feelings and symbolic values are attached to the structure (Duyvendak, 2011, p. 37). Building upon this distinction of house and home, Blunt and Dowling (2006) suggest that home is both a space and a concept that can exist at different scales such as the body, the house, the city or the nation. They argue that home must be considered as a spatial imaginary—representing the relationship between feelings, attachment and dwelling—as well as a political space of negotiation and contestation. Bridging individual and collective understandings of home, Brickell (2014a) describes the home as ‘intimately bound to personal and community projections of morality, dignity and identity’ (p. 270). Furthermore, the diverse meanings of home across the life course (for example, for different family members) suggest that the concept and meaning of home is dynamic. Duyvendak (2011) describes three elements of home consistent with other scholarly conceptualisations: familiarity, haven and heaven. Familiarity consists of knowing a place and is related to feelings of attachment and rootedness (Cresswell, 2004), coupled with a sense of meaning about the importance of home. Haven implies feelings of physical and material safety, security, predictability and privacy relating to the home as a structure. For example, Seamon (1979) argues that the home is an intimate place of rest where one can withdraw from the outside world. Similarly, Tuan (1977) describes home as a place where one can rest and recover with the basics for human life: tools, food and shelter. In the context of political violence, home can offer children and families an element of physical and emotional protection from violence in the community (Akesson, 2014a). Thirdly, home as heaven is more symbolic, helping individuals to develop a collective identity and to connect others through shared history and the creation of intentional communities (Duyvendak, 2011). This is reflected in the writing of Hooks (1990, 2009), who depicts home as a place of resistance, where one is relatively free to forge identity.
Champion Briefs 187 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Impact: Domicide is a unique form of trauma.
Akesson, Bree. "The Right To Home: Domicide As A Violation Of Child And Family Rights In The Context Of Political Vi." CHILDREN & SOCIETY. August 10, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
The term domicide was coined by Porteous and Smith (2001) to describe the ‘deliberate destruction of home against the will of the home dweller’ (p. 3). The effects of domicide cause distress in the former inhabitants resulting in a unique form of trauma, mainly because they often experience their home being destroyed after being physically and oftentimes violently removed from it. More recently, Baxter and Brickell (2014) suggest what they describe as broader definition of domicide through their term ‘home unmaking’: ‘the precarious process by which material and/or imaginary components of home are unintentionally or deliberately, temporarily or permanently, divested, damaged or even destroyed’ (p. 134). Clearly ‘more varied and expansive’ (p. 134), home unmaking includes events such as forced evictions, war and atrocities, natural disasters, as well as moving and leaving home, homelessness, marital breakdown, domestic violence and death. In the context of this paper, we prefer the term domicide, as it is more aligned with the extreme impacts of political violence.
Champion Briefs 188 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Inherency: Homes are destroyed as a result of routine and extreme violence.
Akesson, Bree. "The Right To Home: Domicide As A Violation Of Child And Family Rights In The Context Of Political Vi." CHILDREN & SOCIETY. August 10, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
Porteous and Smith (2001) conceptualise domicide as either extreme or everyday. Extreme domicide represents the destruction of home due to political violence, colonial geopiracy and resettlement projects. Everyday domicide is related to capitalism, where homes and neighbourhoods are intentionally demolished as the result of ‘the normal, mundane operations of the world’s political economy’ (p. 106). In other words, domicide can either be an event (extreme) or a process (everyday). Regardless of temporal aspects, domicide has long-lasting political, socioeconomic, psychological and cultural implications for victims, as the destruction of the home has the potential to foster future conflicts given the punctuated socio-political animosities domicidal actions create. We argue that domicide is a clear violation of fundamental human rights and destroying homes damages essential mechanisms of everyday family and community life. Methods used to destroy homes include either direct or indirect violence. Direct violence involves using physical measures to displace populations from their homes and to physically destroy home structures, the use of force to help settle other populations in the homes, or the use of force to ensure that home structures remain vacant. For example, in 1944 the Chechens were violently removed from their homes in Transcaucasia as part of Joseph Stalin’s population transfers and ethnic Russians were placed in their homes by Soviet authorities. These actions sowed the seeds of war decades later in the 1990s (Basso, 2016; Naimark, 2001). Conversely, indirect forms of violence involve using non-physical and subtle force to displace populations from their homes through socioeconomic exclusion, political manoeuvring and bureaucratic structures. The displacement of Greek Cypriots from Northern Cyprus in 1974 involved the transfer of Greeks southward where Greek home structures were systemically appropriated by Turks or left vacant. The destruction of homes was a means to demonstrating political sovereignty over new territories for the Turks (Hampton, 2014).
Champion Briefs 189 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Impact: Domicide causes irreversible mental and physical health problems and is part of a larger cycle of political exploitation.
Akesson, Bree. "The Right To Home: Domicide As A Violation Of Child And Family Rights In The Context Of Political Vi." CHILDREN & SOCIETY. August 10, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
Domicide is a multifaceted crime that has complex individual and collective effects. Domicide is never perpetrated in a vacuum. It is used by perpetrators to achieve larger political ends, be that settler colonialism, the altering of strategic situations, changing ethnic demographics of regions, or to collectively punish populations for perceived or real injustices. Domicide is particularly harsh on children and families in the context of political violence, whose life-worlds can be centred in the home (Akesson, 2014a,b). For these families, the elements of home—such as familiarity, haven, heaven, discussed above—are particularly important for families experiencing political violence, because they provide an element of physical and emotional protection from violence in the surrounding community. Examples of research examining either the deliberate destruction of or displacement from home include Abrams (1971) study on the negative effects of relocation and urban renewal upon the poor, research on the after-effects of the Buffalo Creek disaster (Erikson, 1976a,b), Fullilove’s (1996) findings that disruptions to place compound negative physical and mental health effects, and Duyvendak’s (2011) conclusions that being without a home is akin to feeling permanently out of place. These studies also indicate that the disruption of one’s sense of place through involuntary relocation threatens self-identity and can be overwhelming for those with a strong sense of attachment to place. Though these studies contribute to a growing understanding of the effects of domicide, they describe loss of place through the lens of adults, rather than through the voices of children and families. This section will describe the effects of domicide on the experiences of children and families in the context of political violence. Home is a symbolic place that often embodies togetherness, individual and family growth, accomplishments, memories, and deeply personal and familial connections with land and territory. Scholars have pointed out how places of origin, such as the home, are closely connected to cultural practices, symbolic meanings, memories and rituals that shape individual identity (Escobar, 2001). Chow and Healey (2008) have drawn a connection between separation from place and experiences of ‘dislocation’, ‘distancing’, and to some extent place alienation (p. 364). Being dispossessed from ones traditional territory, customs and culture—all of which are embodied within the context of the home—may manifest in depression, fear, despair and aggressive behaviour (Escobar, 2000). One study examining the effects of home demolitions on Palestinian children (Save the Children UK (SCUK), Palestinian Counseling Centre, and Welfare Association, 2009) compared to children of similar demographics living in the same location, found that children who had their homes intentionally destroyed fared significantly worse on a range of mental health indicators including withdrawal, somatic complaints, depression, anxiety, social difficulties, higher rates of delusional, obsessive compulsive and psychotic thoughts, attention difficulties, delinquency, and violent behaviour. Not surprisingly, the study found that children’s mental health was closely tied to their caregivers’ mental and physical health.
Champion Briefs 190 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Akesson, Bree. "The Right To Home: Domicide As A Violation Of Child And Family Rights In The Context Of Political Vi." CHILDREN & SOCIETY. August 10, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
Similarly, Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s (2009) case study of home demolitions for children in Palestine found that children who were forced from their homes reported feeling anxious, sad and angry after experiencing repeated displacement. Losing their homes and becoming refugees within their own neighbourhoods was reported as the most painful incident that had happened to them and ultimately an experience of ‘living in the hyphen’: When one’s home is demolished, one’s self, identity and traumatic experiences are chaotically mixed with each other creating a new psychological construct, a state of hyphenated existence. Living in the hyphen is being torn between the physical loss of the home and its traumatic effect, and the re-building of the demolished home with the power of collective hope. It is living the totality of death and birth, the reality of constant loss (p. 340). Families who experienced domicide also reported deterioration in children’s educational achievement and ability to study (Save the Children UK (SCUK), Palestinian Counseling Centre, and Welfare Association, 2009). Children become acutely aware of how they are perceived differently from their friends and peers at school after a home demolition. Some children have reported that they feel as if they stand out and that people look at them with pity, which makes them feel like outsiders (Pellicano, 2013).
Champion Briefs 191 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Impact: Destruction of housing catalyzes civic action against institutional power structures.
Akesson, Bree. "The Right To Home: Domicide As A Violation Of Child And Family Rights In The Context Of Political Vi." CHILDREN & SOCIETY. August 10, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
Because it represents politically motivated violence that directly affects the home and family, domicide becomes a geopolitical issue representing an extreme and destructive incursion into the private sphere of everyday family life (Brickell, 2012). While domicide can affect the supportive nature of communities, and in some cases even destroy communities, it also has the capacity to encourage active citizenship and collective action among those who have experienced the injustice of dispossession (Brickell, 2014b). Through research with Cambodian women affected by forced eviction, Brickell (2014b) explains: ‘…activism against forced eviction animates rather than inhibits an emotive topography and language of activism…’ (p. 1259). Similarly, using the example of the Cheslatta T’En Canadian First Nation, Windsor and Mcvey (2005) note that an unintentional outcome of the uprooting and resettlement of indigenous peoples has been an increase in the political activism of such groups. And in his research on home demolitions in China, Shao (2013) describes people evicted from their dwellings ‘who display determination, courage, strength, wisdom and patience…common people turned stubborn protesters/petition specialists, government officials, developers, media professionals and public intellectuals’ (p. 392). Children and families affected by political violence can be explicitly involved in these resilient processes. Akesson’s (2014b) research in the context of Palestine found that even the threat of domicide persuaded parents and children to claim that they would collectively defend their homes, even at the risk of physical harm. The potential for home demolition also brought the community together to collectively support families who were evacuated from their homes. Twenty-three year-old Sanaa described how her community set up an alert system when the Israeli police arrived to forcibly remove a family or demolish a home: …we make a circle of our houses to see if there are police, to see if there is anything happening, like, to be ready… When they see the police, they go and run into the house… put this alarm to let everybody know...Because of that, we have, from every family, one man or one woman, every week, all at once, we are sitting together, all of us, like a neighbourhood, to speak about the neighbourhood, and what we will do… Ultimately, while domicide can tear families and communities apart, it can also work to reinforce community strengths and mechanisms, as community members share a communal bond over shared oppression and violations of their rights. In other words, domicide is not just shaped by the geopolitics related to political violence ‘from above’, but it is also shaped by civic protest ‘from below’ (Brickell, 2014b, p. 1260).
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 192 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Solvency: International Human Rights Law is insufficient to protect individuals from domicide. Housing must be the focal point of action.
Akesson, Bree. "The Right To Home: Domicide As A Violation Of Child And Family Rights In The Context Of Political Vi." CHILDREN & SOCIETY. August 10, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
There is currently no Convention that explicitly emphasises the importance of the right to the home, and there is limited recognition internationally that domicide is a rights violation. We argue that the right to home should not just be implicitly referred to or assumed, but rather specifically and explicitly highlighted as a critical element of human (including children’s and families’) rights. Current international legal standards, normative guidance and tools are far too ambiguous in their operationalisation of the home. For example, the UDHR (United Nations, 1948) does not provide specific principles to protect those whose homes have been destroyed. The right to a home is vaguely referred to in Articles 9 (‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary …exile’), 12 (‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his … home’), and 17 (‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property’). The imprecision of the word arbitrary impacts the way home is conceptualised as a right, indicating that these decisions are made randomly rather than carried out in a systematic manner. The right to the home, or adequate housing, is mentioned in numerous human rights and LOAC documents, but it has never been a focal point of a single convention that codifies the right to the home. Relatedly and just as important, a Convention would have to state that intentional destruction of the home is a violation of fundamental human rights which undermines human dignity and the laws and conduct of warfare. While Article 11(1) of the ICESCR mentions the necessities required for an adequate life, it does not specifically protect against home destructions and forced evictions— these have only been identified by later scholarship or interpretations of rights. The SR on the Right to Adequate Housing has made clear arguments on why there is a human right to the home, yet the SR’s arguments would be significantly bolstered if the office did not have to draw upon many human rights documents to infer there is a right to the home, rather than point to a single convention which clearly and plainly states there is a right to the home. This, perhaps, would offer more strength to prevention strategies in identifying domicidal patterns and processes, and prosecuting individuals who destroy homes illegally. At the minimum, a convention on the right to the home would offer a specific document to bolster the human rights regime as destroying the home in any way is a clear human and child rights violation
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 193 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Framing Card: Debates should focus on morality instead of economic maximization.
Kertesz, Stefan. "Permanent Supportive Housing For Homeless People — Reframing The Debate." New England Journal of Medicine. December 01, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
The persistence of homelessness in the United States has increased interest in providing permanent housing with supportive services to people with disabling conditions who have been homeless for more than a year. Skeptical about achieving political consensus on providing housing solely on humanitarian grounds, advocates for ending homelessness have increasingly turned to a financial argument, claiming that permanent supportive housing will deliver net cost savings to society by reducing the use of jails, shelters, and hospitals. But as researchers and clinicians who endorse such permanent supportive housing, we believe the cost-savings argument is problematic and that it would be better to reframe the discussion to focus primarily on the best way to meet this population’s needs.
Champion Briefs 194 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Framing Card: Economic indicators obfuscate the ethical imperative to prevent homelessness.
Kertesz, Stefan. "Permanent Supportive Housing For Homeless People — Reframing The Debate." New England Journal of Medicine. December 01, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
Although some advocates may see these findings as disappointing, we believe they present an opportunity to reconsider the problems inherent in applying a cost-savings outcome metric to Housing First. First, creating expectations of cost savings imposes a double standard. In general, there’s no expectation that health and social services save money. Instead, we invest in treatments, programs, and services that deliver benefits at an acceptable cost, often judged on the basis of quality-adjusted life-years gained. Insisting on net savings from Housing First programs implicitly devalues the lives of homeless people. Second, a focus on savings could overshadow other metrics of success and imply failure when Housing First programs achieve their primary aim but don’t produce net savings. Finally, overemphasizing the cost dimensions reduces a complex social situation to a financial calculation. Advocates and researchers shouldn’t proceed from a view that Americans are so uncaring that they will support responses to homelessness only if they deliver net monetary gains. A persuasive and more sound argument favoring Housing First would instead draw from scientific research, economic considerations, and moral values. From a scientific perspective, high-quality studies have shown that Housing First is superior to usual care in promoting residential stability, with clients being housed for 65 to 85% of the subsequent 1 to 2 years, as compared with 23 to 39% among people randomly assigned to receive usual services.2 Although selected studies have shown benefits for HIV control and alcohol use, several trials have found no significant improvements associated with these programs in terms of other health status indicators. However, health effects represent a relatively new area of inquiry, with the longest trials including just 2 years of follow-up. Interventions targeting social determinants of health may require more time and sustained investment to effect meaningful changes in health outcomes. From an economic perspective, Housing First’s failure to attain net cost savings shouldn’t obscure its relatively low cost. Depending on the context and service package, Housing First programs often cost $8,000 to $18,000 per year of housing. Returns on investment include partial offsets in the use of emergency medical and judicial services and the creation of a more livable community and a more welcoming space for commercial development. If we can countenance figures of $100,000 to $150,000 per quality- adjusted life-year for selected medical interventions, then the cost of successfully housing vulnerable people escaping chronic homelessness should be within reach. From an ethical perspective, Housing First upholds the human right to housing articulated in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” and solidified in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also resonates with the tenets of nearly every religious tradition in prioritizing care and hospitality for poor and vulnerable people. It aims to fulfill a collective responsibility to account for and remediate the incongruity of persistent homelessness in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We believe that Housing First, coupled with efforts to prevent more people from becoming homeless, represents the best possible expression of what Abraham Lincoln characterized as “the better angels of our nature.”
Champion Briefs 195 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Gentrification creates homelessness.
Ponder, Emily. "GENTRIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO HOUSING: HOW HIP BECOMES A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Southwestern Journal of International Law. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
Her story is - sadly - not unique in New York City, neither across the United States, nor the globe. As a tenants' attorney in the rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of Harlem in New York City, I am endlessly amazed by the tactics landlords will use to push "undesirable" and low- income tenants out of their rent stabilized apartment in order to cash in on the urban "revitalization" occurring there. Security cameras are set up outside of my clients' apartments to try and catch them doing anything that could amount to a breach of their lease, landlords refuse to provide heat and electricity, rat infestations go unabated - the list goes on. n2 When my clients have had enough, when they feel sure they can fight their case but are simply too tired to keep fighting, they move out. But the options for moving out are limited in New York City, so they often leave the state, or move into a relative's already crowded apartment, hoping they will win a housing lottery for another affordable unit. [*361] This is gentrification. It is a process that on its surface appears to be beautifying and revitalizing an impoverished urban core, but in reality, it only embraces the wants and needs of the privileged, while displacing low-income families of color. n3 These families are often left without comparable alternative housing options, or without any options at all. n4 When gentrification proceeds without proper consideration of those being displaced, it is inhumane and, as this article argues, possibly a violation of the human right to housing. It is a crisis that must be addressed, and those responsible for gentrification must be held accountable in order to ensure that every person - regardless of class, race, or privilege - is afforded every opportunity to dwell in adequate urban housing. This article will explore the ways that gentrification threatens the international human right to housing. To do so, it will first define gentrification, including its roots, theories of origin, major players, and effects. Then, it will proceed to outline the international human right to housing and conduct a deeper analysis of the aspects of that right, which is compromised by modern gentrification. Finally, it will make recommendations for advocates who hope to employ rights-based arguments against this displacement caused by gentrification.
Champion Briefs 196 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Gentrification is part of a complex process of neoliberalism.
Ponder, Emily. "GENTRIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO HOUSING: HOW HIP BECOMES A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Southwestern Journal of International Law. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
As this critical understanding of gentrification illuminates, many political, economic, and social factors influence the process of gentrification mainly to the detriment of poor and minority populations, n11 who are displaced from their homes and often have no comparable alternative. n12 It is an understanding couched within the "neoliberalism" that pervades global policy wherein development and free-market prevail over "social welfare." n13 This complex definition is the one I will use to frame this article. Scholars have theorized extensively on the reasons why gentrification occurs. As Lees, Slater, and Wyly recognize, the theory of gentrification can be understood as both a production-side and consumption-side phenomenon that "thrives because it has become profitable for developers, investors, government agencies, and others to produce spaces and places that become attractive options for consumer gentrifiers to choose in their pursuit of aesthetic sophistication and cultural authenticity." n14 After a "white flight" to the suburbs in the middle of the last century, there has been a steady return to the cities as more affluent people seek inexpensive real estate n15 and homes closer to white-collar jobs. n16 The resultant picture of gentrification is sometimes comically hip - a London cereal cafe with 120 kinds of cereal and 30 kinds of milk, priced at $ 4.50 a bowl, n17 or a hot sauce [*364] tasting room complete with a "hot sauce sommelier" in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. n18 But gentrification goes beyond simple consumer preference and profiteering. It is a complex process controlled heavily by State funding and other incentives. Indeed, one of the most prevailing theories on the reason behind modern gentrification is the idea that neoliberalism threatens cities with loss of capital, "forc[ing cities] to lure investment and development" through unprecedented means. n19 "Twenty-first Century neoliberalism" involves the restructuring of "federal and state government control" through the "privatization of state [] functions" and a "decrease in social spending." n20 Neil Smith posits that gentrification is a global urban strategy adopted by cities worldwide in an effort to "attract[] capital," and, as such, the State has a profound incentive to encourage the revitalization of dilapidated areas that are traditionally seen as crime-ridden and undesirable. n21 The State plays a substantial role in the gentrification process through direct and indirect means. The State may directly influence and encourage gentrification through strategically planning for parks, public transportation, and other public services in dilapidated neighborhoods. n22 The State will also indirectly - though strategically - influence gentrification through rezoning and creating tax incentives for development in particular neighborhoods, as well as through selectively cracking down on low-level crimes and selectively enforcing codes in low-income areas to make neighborhoods more attractive to wealthy in-movers.
Champion Briefs 197 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Framing housing as a “goal” rather than a right exacerbates gentrification.
Ponder, Emily. "GENTRIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO HOUSING: HOW HIP BECOMES A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Southwestern Journal of International Law. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
When gentrification is conflated with "revitalization" of cities, it is easy to ignore the effects on those who are displaced. That is not to say that gentrification has not been met with resistance by the displaced and other stakeholders. n38 But as long as U.S. housing policy bows to - indeed, even participates in - the free-market economy of housing, gentrification will persist. n39 For this reason, it is important to explore what the State's obligations are with respect to housing in the wake of gentrification. The common thread for those who are displaced by gentrification is the loss of and/or inability to access housing. n40 As such, the right to housing as it relates to gentrification is worth exploring. The right to housing is a well-recognized, fundamental human right. n41 It was first enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, n42 and has since been expounded upon in numerous human rights treaties including most fully in Article 11 of the International Convention on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights ("ICSECR") n43 and also in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ("CEDAW"), n44 Convention on the Rights of the Child ("CRC"), n45 and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ("CERD"). n46 Notably, the U.S. generally declines to recognize economic, social, and cultural ("ESC") rights and has signed, but not ratified, the ICESCR. n47 The U.S. is one of only six U.N.-member states that has failed to ratify the convention, which attests to both the sweeping international [*368] recognition of the rights contained in the ICESCR and the U.S.'s abysmal failure to fully acknowledge ESC rights. n48 Indeed, the U.S. frames adequate housing for all as a "goal" rather than a right. n49 The Housing Act of 1949, the fundamental source of U.S. housing policy, laid out the noble goal of "the realization as soon as feasible of a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family." n50
Champion Briefs 198 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Regardless of U.S policymaking we should recognize a right to housing.
Ponder, Emily. "GENTRIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO HOUSING: HOW HIP BECOMES A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Southwestern Journal of International Law. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
Despite the U.S.'s failure to recognize a right to housing, pointing to the international obligations imposed by this right will highlight how gentrification threatens this right in the U.S. and across the globe, which should encourage immediate action. Moreover, some scholars suggest that the right to housing is so fundamental that it is a "freedom right" - one that is a "moral right," and is therefore not dependent on institutional guarantees. n51 As such, even if the U.S. does not officially acknowledge a right to housing, this right cannot be viewed as anything less than innate regardless of official U.S. policy. With that, international human right to housing will provide a universal framework for which to understand the basic tenets of shelter and human dignity in the midst of gentrification.
Champion Briefs 199 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Gentrification is exacerbated by a lack of access to legal services in the U.S.
Ponder, Emily. "GENTRIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO HOUSING: HOW HIP BECOMES A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Southwestern Journal of International Law. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
Actions taken to force out low-income tenants are compounded by inadequacy of access to the civil justice system. Although the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to counsel in criminal proceedings, there is no similar guarantee to civil counsel when a person cannot afford a lawyer. n88 This creates a serious inequality when low-income tenants find themselves in eviction proceedings against wealthy landlords. n89 In New York City, for example, each borough has a dedicated Housing Court and endless legal provisions that govern exactly how and when a tenant may be evicted from any regulated or subsidized housing program. n90 However, justice often seems hollow when, as in New York City, ninety percent of tenants act pro se, while attorneys represent about ninety percent of landlords. n91 This has resulted in unrepresented tenants prevailing roughly thirty percent of the time but, when represented by counsel, tenants succeed roughly sixty percent of the time. n92 The situation may be even worse in other states. Studies have found that in some states, unrepresented tenants never prevail in claims against their landlords. n93 Even when a landlord does not resort to baseless or selectively justified evictions, harassment may force out low-income tenants threatening legal security of tenure. n94 Harassment takes on numerous forms. n95 In New York City, landlords have an enumerated duty not to harass, defined as "any act by the landlord that cause or is intended to cause the tenant to vacate or surrender any rights in relation to occupancy," including: "(1) violence, threats, and illegal eviction; (2) repeated interruptions or discontinuances of essential services or failing to correct conditions underlying a vacate order; and (3) commencing repeated baseless or frivolous court proceedings." n96 When there is not sufficient deterrent and landlords have sufficient incentive to force out lower paying tenants in order to reap higher rents, gentrification lends itself to these prohibited practices.
Champion Briefs 200 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Internal Link: The federal government is directly responsible for decreases in available affordable housing.
Ponder, Emily. "GENTRIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO HOUSING: HOW HIP BECOMES A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Southwestern Journal of International Law. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
But the U.S. failure to respond to the affordability crisis is not limited to government intermingling with private developers. n121 The federal government is directly responsible for the decrease in available affordable housing through its curtailing of federal subsidy programs and closing of public housing projects across the U.S. n122 These state actions - or lack thereof - are directly related to the forces driving gentrification and the neoliberal mentality that has taken hold of U.S. policy. n123 Some scholars even suggest that public housing itself is being gentrified - low-income units are removed from public housing projects in favor of new development with "mixed affordability" that fails to replace units available to the lowest income tenants displaced from the old projects. n124 The gentrification of public housing is the result of dilapidated buildings and the fear that public housing complexes create a hotbed for crime and poverty, and the belief that decentralizing low-income families will decentralize crime and make those areas more desirable. n125 Even where the federal government does provide assistance in the form of housing vouchers that low-income tenants can use to subsidize private market-rate apartments, landlords sometimes refuse to accept such vouchers because of the stigma associated with low-income tenants, and the fear that this may make their building look less [*378] desirable to wealthy, in-moving tenants in gentrifying neighborhoods. n126 In this way, gentrification creates a perfect storm of unwieldy increases in market-rate rents and the further deterioration of the nation's already limited affordable housing stock, leaving displaced low- income tenants with few alternative options and corroding the right to affordable housing. n127 One of the primary ways the State can avoid this corrosion is by protecting tenants from unreasonable rent increases through "rent regulation." n128 Furthermore, the U.S. should increase funding for direct subsidies and public housing programs to provide options for tenants displaced as a result of gentrification, rather than participating in the gentrification of public housing and providing too few units for very low-income tenants. Additionally, when direct subsidies are provided, measures should be taken to prohibit income discrimination and enforce that prohibition. Finally, when municipalities encourage development through zoning that provides for affordable units, n129 those units should be made affordable for very low-income and middle low-income earners alike and contain some degree of protection from rent increases. Otherwise, gentrification will continue to heighten the affordability crisis and leave the urban poor without viable alternatives to adequate and affordable housing.
Champion Briefs 201 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Solvency: USFG action can solve with large scale policy reform.
Ponder, Emily. "GENTRIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO HOUSING: HOW HIP BECOMES A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION." Southwestern Journal of International Law. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
Although the U.S. does not officially recognize the right to housing, it should be guided by this important international standard when responding to gentrification. In light of the current affordability crisis and a staggeringly large homeless population, n156 the U.S. must take action through increased funding for public housing, subsidies, enforcement of legal process, and provision of legal services counsel to low-income tenants. Instead of encouraging gentrification, the national housing policy should aim to revitalize dilapidated communities through providing adequate housing for the urban poor, meaningful employment opportunities, and the access to schools, transportation, grocery stores, hospitals, and other services. Fulfilling the right to housing and protecting vulnerable tenants in the midst of gentrification must happen through large-scale policy [*383] reform. But steps can also be taken on a daily basis in urban communities. Those living in gentrifying urban neighborhoods can choose to sustain neighborhoods by purchasing goods from local businesses or refusing to rent from developers with track records of harassment. Law students can participate in housing clinics to help expand access to civil counsel and apprise tenants of their rights. Any resident can join a neighborhood or tenants' association to amplify the voice of those affected by gentrification and work toward greater tenant protection. In this way, each urban dweller is a guardian of the human right to housing and can work to ensure that gentrification does not violate this most fundamental right.
Champion Briefs 202 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Turn: Appeals to morality in the context of Western assistance perpetuates victim/perpetrator trope which entrenches neo-colonialism, makes the impacts of the 1AC inevitable.
Hao, Rachel. "Rhetoric Of Responsibility: R2P’s Harmful Application In Humanitarian Practice." E-International Relations. February 15, 2015. Web. February 08, 2017.
Critical approaches to R2P are particularly revealing when analysing potential harm that results from norm application. ‘Third World Approaches to International Law’ (TWAIL) considers modern international relations and law with particular emphasis on the international system’s colonial history (Robertson 2005, pg. 41). By regarding the R2P doctrine through a ‘third world’ perspective, TWAIL reveals concerns specific to the cultural context of the developing world that would otherwise be overlooked (Gathii 2011, pg. 32). In particular, the colonial history of most developing nations has embedded a deep mistrust of any kind of foreign intervention, regardless of claims of humanitarian protection (Robertson 2005, pg. 43). ASEAN, for example, is especially sceptical of R2P, as many of its members see military intervention as central to its implementation, thus conflicting with their Westphalian interpretation of sovereignty. (Drummond 2009, pg. 7) R2P arguably maintains the current inequality of the international system for a number of reasons. Firstly, as previously mentioned, the international system is not governed by a universal standard of morality. Instead, critical theorist David Rieff argues that there exists an international order and international institutions ‘dominated by the United States’ (Reiff 2003, pg. 8 – 9). Furthermore, the structural requirement of a Security Council mandate for R2P interventions to take place means that this so-called ‘universal standard’ is, in reality, defined by the five veto powers, who thus control R2P’s application (Robertson 2005, pg. 50). Another necessary threshold of R2P is the ‘Reasonable Prospects’ requirement, which requires a ‘reasonable chance of success’ for an intervention to be justified (ICISS 2001, pg. 37). As a result, only nations of political and military strength could reasonably apply R2P, likely doing so for selfish reasons, and thus entrenching the current international hierarchy (Robertson 2005, pg. 44). There are also claims that R2P has contributed to a ‘geography of power’, with a ‘core and a periphery’ that defines international prestige not just by military and economic strength, but also by assigning moral superiority to the Western forces associated with the practice of the doctrine (Dexter 2007, pg. 1057). This neo-colonial humanitarian discourse, which posits the powerful as ‘heroic saviours’ of the pitiful victims of the developing world, is damaging not just to the psyche of states receiving assistance, but also normalises and entrenches the right of the powerful to judge the sovereign legitimacy of the weak (Branch 2011, pg. 109). For these reasons, TWAIL convincingly draws a causal link between the nature of R2P as a slogan and the harm this affects on the parties it was intended to protect.
Champion Briefs 203 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Turn: Housing support policies are a tool for bio political control.
Boyd, Jade. "Supportive Housing And Surveillance." International Journal of Drug Policy. August 01, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
In sum, supportive housing for marginalized people is, in fact, integral to an expanding carceral security state that increasingly relies on surveillance and regulation (Wacquant, 2009). This is evidenced in our study in relation to marginalized people identified as having addiction and mental health problems in the DTES. Though our analysis is partial, interpretive and limited to a specific time and place, our method of data collection, observation, allowed for important elements (in particular, a material and corporeal presence in a physical environment) that might get lost (or remain unseen) in other research methods. Certainly it enabled us to discern (following Foucault, 1977) that ubiquitous compulsory visibility inside and outside of one’s home alongside the normalization of on-going enforcement of sitespecific rules and inter- institutional policies should be problematized further. Housing the urban poor and at risk populations must not ‘‘be divorced from discussions of ‘place’ – the construction and quality of built environments’’ (Knight et al., 2014, p. 5). However, we extend this analysis to also problematize the normalization of ‘supportive’ practices by staff, care workers, and law enforcement that shape institutional settings. While the expansion of adequate and affordable social housing is an important human right, it is significant to note that surveillance tactics may also undermine the original intent of harm reduction initiatives and community care strategies implemented in the DTES’ supportive housing nexus. Future research and housing initiatives would benefit from further attention to constitutional rights, collaboration with tenants, tenant and staff resistance to policing and surveillance, and better recognition of the multifaceted tensions between support and coercion. In order to adequately support marginalized people living in supportive and low-income housing it is critical to draw attention to the harms of drug prohibition and law enforcement, the social control of people living with mental illness, the socioeconomic roots of poverty, the impact of colonization and the human rights of at risk populations where measures of regulation and control become normalized. In other words, how might housing be differently imagined?
Champion Briefs 204 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
No Solvency: The success of “right to housing” solutions depends on stake holder buy in.
Garcia Amado, Patricia. "Connecting Tenure Security With Durable Solutions To Internal Displacement: From Restitution Of Prop." International Migration. March 04, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
The Framework emphasizes the right to an adequate standard of living for all IDPs, including the right to sustainable access to housing under minimum requisites of availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability (UNHRC, 2009: para. 65, 66). It further argues that the state should make “tangible commitments” to the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights and address the sources of forced displacement (ibid: para. 69). Unlike the case of restitution, there is no internationally recognized guideline to support IDPs’ entitlement to housing. However, the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing has elaborated some recommendations calling to address the loss of tenure security – particularly customary and informal – that results from conflict (UNHRC, 2010). Humanitarian agencies have been compelled to adopt a human rights approach, coordinate their efforts with development organizations and engage with local authorities in urban areas (Crisp et al., 2012). Development programmes on housing provision to vulnerable groups have guided the promotion of tenure security for urban IDPs and connected the right to housing with increasing opportunities for inclusive economic growth. As a result, the responses to internal displacement have progressively evolved from the protection of former property rights to the realization of the human right to adequate housing as part of the strategies to achieve durable solutions. A recent study led by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC, 2015) has gathered, systematized and compared nine strategies advancing IDPs’ right to housing in urban environments. In addition to legal aspects, these programmes addressed de facto components through the prioritization of community acceptance and the association of settlement sustainability with the provision of services and income-generating activities. The perception of tenure security was also introduced through direct participation in the identification of vulnerable groups and the planning of future settlements, increasing ownership of the process. The results of the study advocate inclusive area-based approaches, provided that the housing needs of IDPs and other urban poor are mostly similar and that these could increase host community acceptance and facilitate integration (Davies, 2012). However, the great economic cost of this type of intervention in cities with a high prevalence of informal settlements requires the sustained financial support of international donors and economic institutions. This dependence on external funds not only compromises the sustainability and scope of these programmes but could also condition the way in which their impact is measured, which often means that only formal tenure forms will be recognized as secure by donors (Fagen, 2009: 40). The report clearly shows how diverse programmes have contributed to increase security of tenure in multiple forms (rental, incremental tenure, freehold, social housing) and insists on the need to recognize the validity of all tenure forms, including informal and customary. Even so, there is a call to progressively translate this recognition to formal titles and the codification of customary or informal practices
Champion Briefs 205 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Garcia Amado, Patricia. "Connecting Tenure Security With Durable Solutions To Internal Displacement: From Restitution Of Prop." International Migration. March 04, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
(IDMC, 2015: 65). This recommendation lies in the belief that formality ultimately equates to security. However, informal tenure forms could still be required to cover the housing needs of the poorest and most vulnerable groups that may not be able to pay the costs of legalization, including taxes and service payments, in a sustainable manner over time (Bayat, 2000: 549). Finally, the study emphasizes that all these programmes require “significant political will” (IDMC, 2015: 67). Having said that, this political will should not be simplistically reduced to state representatives. Instead, we should visualize the interplay of multiple stakeholders— international, national and local—in the process of peacebuilding, state-building and economic development to understand how their negotiation of priorities and demands concerning land may affect the ability of IDPs to secure tenure and choose a settlement option (Boone and Lund, 2013). The political sensitivity of HLP issues have to be acknowledged and the solutions to internal displacement should be contextualized.
Champion Briefs 206 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Turn: Free market solutions are better than government programs.
Boston, Thomas. "Housing Solutions For Low-Income Families: The Standard For Quality And Sustainability." City & Community. December 01, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
Third, housing services for low-income families must be sustainable. Meaning, they have to be insulated from the whims of the political agenda—which changes every electoral cycle. One reason for enlisting private property managers in mixed-income developments is because they have a market-driven incentive to maintain the highest level of housing services for all families. The only way they can attract market rate families is to make housing livable for all families. While we should never be blind to the flaws of the market economy, we should also not be so na¨ıve as to believe that the government sector will provide quality affordable housing on a sustained basis. The best example of this is the New York Housing Authority. Not long ago, it provided the highest level of traditional public housing services in the country to its 800,000 families. Today, because of sustained cutbacks, it needs hundreds of billions of dollars just to bring its housing stock up to an acceptable level.
Champion Briefs 207 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The right to housing is necessary to ensure human flourishing since the right to be grounds all human capabilities.
King, Peter. "Housing As A Freedom Right." Housing Studies Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672. February 10, 2017. Web. February 02, 2017.
Having briefly considered what rights are, there will now be a look at how they might be used to justify housing as a basic requirement. In particular, the idea of housing as a freedom right rather than a socio-economic claim will be considered. Freedom rights can be seen as negative rights, in that they prohibit coercion and interference in the interests of others (Berlin, 1969). The importance of negative rights for some libertarian thinkers such as Machan (1989) and Rasmussen & Den Uyl (1991), is that they do not clash. Omissions can have simultaneous multiple effects. Coercion by the state impinges on the rights of all its citizens. But importantly, these thinkers would argue that the enjoyment of life, liberty and property by one does not deny it to others. The amount of liberty in any society is not governed by a zero-sum game, where one person taking a share diminishes the pool left for the rest. However, socio-economic claims frequently entail the distribution of scarce resources, and thus any settlement will involve the adjudication between rival claims. Thus, because they involve finite resources, these claims place individual rights-holders in direct competition with their fellow citizens. As a result these libertarian thinkers limit the remit of rights to indivisible goods such as liberty and autonomy, and to property rights, which, they suggest, underpin these other rights. Sen (1985) has argued that the notion of negative rights, as propounded in this case by Nozick (1974), is flawed. Sen questions whether it is sufficient to allow individuals legitimately to pursue their ends even when this might have disastrous consequences. Sen’s point is that individuals may be unable to command certain necessary goods because they have no entitlement to possess those goods. In this case, they have no property rights over goods and services. Bengtsson (1995) relates Sen’s argument to housing, and states, “It is not difficult to find examples of how people have been deprived of shelter, just because they lacked—and others had—control of private property” (p. 126). This implies that the positive rights of some, to property, clash with the negative rights of others. Again it suggests that one cannot divorce rights-based theories from utilitarian considerations (which is precisely why libertarian theories like those of Machan and Rasmussen & Den Uyl restrict rights to negative entities only). An interesting way around the apparent clash between freedom rights and socio-economic claims has been offered by Waldron (1993b). His discussion is also important for a further reason. It shows that the right to housing might actually be one of the most significant rights, if not the most significant. This is because it acts as the bedrock for all others [rights], in that all rights must be situated. Waldron’s argument can be said to rest on an intuitive or common sense notion about what human beings need in order to function. His particular argument concentrates on what might be called elemental functions, such as sleeping, washing and urinating. If one is not able to undertake these basic functions then one is not, properly stated, able to live at all. However, this intuitionist position does not, of itself, justify housing to a particular standard. Waldron’s position might lead one to see fulfilment in
Champion Briefs 208 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
King, Peter. "Housing As A Freedom Right." Housing Studies Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672. February 10, 2017. Web. February 02, 2017.
Champion Briefs 209 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
King, Peter. "Housing As A Freedom Right." Housing Studies Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672. February 10, 2017. Web. February 02, 2017.
Champion Briefs 210 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
King, Peter. "Housing As A Freedom Right." Housing Studies Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672. February 10, 2017. Web. February 02, 2017.
(1999). What Nussbaum has identified is an extensive list of universal functional capabilities that are necessary for human flourishing. She suggests that “a life that lacks any one of these capabilities, no matter what else it has, will fall short of being a good human life” (1999, p. 42). Briefly stated, these capabilities are defined as life, bodily health and integrity, senses, imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s environment. This then is an extensive list that seeks to cover the basic elements discussed by Waldron, but also higher order activities relating to affective behaviour, education, a concern for nature, play and education. She considers that the list is “emphatically, a list of separate components” (p. 42), in that one cannot compensate for a lack of one by more of another. Having said this, there are linkages between the capabilities so that they build to create a full basis for flourishing. Housing is referred to as a means of guaranteeing bodily health and integrity. Good quality housing is necessary to ensure good health. In a note to this capability she argues, citing the South African constitution, that the need for bodily health and integrity is increasingly being used as a means to justify housing rights. Nussbaum also sees the “control over one’s environment” as a core functional capability, and goes on to suggest that, in a material (as opposed to political) sense of environment, this would mean being “able to hold property” (p. 42). More generally, according to Nussbaum, we can use these capabilities to establish universal rights from which bodies such as the United Nations or the International Court of Human Rights can determine the legitimacy of the actions of governments and other agencies. This is an avowedly liberal and universal ambition on the part of Nussbaum. It is one though that can readily be linked to the discussion instituted by Waldron on the more specific functions that pose a challenge to the homeless. Just as sleeping, washing and urinating are situated functions, so are those functions discussed by Nussbaum. Like Waldron, Nussbaum has identified a number of capabilities such as the need for health, for personal autonomy, concern for others, and so on, that equally need to be situated before they can become operative. These functionings carry with them a more recognisable sense of housing that equates to a civilised standard. Of course, Nussbaum does not specify housing to any particular standard, but clearly she is considering something that is not merely a basic place to sleep, wash and urinate. What this means is that, once it has been established that the basic elements discussed by Waldron are enclosed within Nussbaum’s more extensive list, the temporary structure provided by Waldron can then be knocked away and it can be replaced with Nussbaum’s more substantial ethical structure. Waldron’s argument was useful for its conceptual clarity and for raising the key issues of a place to be as a freedom right. But this leaves us short of a justification for the right to housing as such. However, once a more extensive list of functional capabilities can be derived, it can be suggested that the right to housing exists in order to fulfil the extensive list of central functional capabilities, and particularly the need for bodily health and integrity. As defined by Nussbaum, this goes beyond a basic place and includes something recognisable as housing. This does not, and could never, justify a particular standard and form of dwelling and the amenities it encloses. Nussbaum’s justification leaves a considerable element for cultural diversity. It does though lay down a standard of requirements that goes beyond the notion of mere place. The basis of this justification is the situated nature of necessary human functioning. Rights can therefore be used to justify housing. One can talk of a universal right to housing based on the need to fulfil an extensive list of human functional capabilities. It is these functional capabilities that form the legitimate claims we make against others.
Champion Briefs 211 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Topicality: The right to housing is a moral right, the aff must defend the right to housing as a normative concept absent policy-making concerns.
King, Peter. "Housing As A Freedom Right." Housing Studies Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672. February 10, 2017. Web. February 02, 2017.
Before proceeding any further there is a need to make a terminological distinction, and in so doing, separate out statutory and philosophical notions of rights. This paper is more properly discussing the ‘right to housing’. This is a moral right that may or may not exist. It is a normative condition that relates to the legitimate interests that individuals have. This is to be distinguished from ‘housing rights’, which relate to conditions granted by statute. The notion of housing rights is, of course, quite commonly referred to. Indeed, there are many texts that aim to explain what rights individuals have to housing and associated benefits, usually produced by professional and lobbying bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Housing and Shelter. Whilst these are obviously useful, [but] they are concerned with what could be called ‘statutory rights’. They seek to elucidate what an individual might be entitled to in law, with the specific aim of acting as guides for practitioners. However, what this practice-based literature does not do is discuss how rights to housing are grounded. These texts cannot tell us why rights themselves are important. This work has already been assumed to have been done, in the sense that it was deemed necessary to enact statutes. Nor can this statutory notion tell us whether rights are, of themselves, a sufficient condition. More practically, they are also unable to inform us of what grounds there might be to extend or to reduce statutory rights, except in the narrow sense of whether particular statutes are effective. Discussions on statutory rights tend to be question-begging, in that they take for granted that rights exist, and that therefore action is necessary by the state to institutionalise them and then to act upon them. But what we need to know is why rights exist and thus why it is that governments have felt the need to legislate for them. This initially necessitates an abstract discussion, which defines rights and how they might be categorised. We might then be able to attach the notion of rights to housing in a more fundamental way. What this means, in effect, is that statutory housing rights rest on an understanding of a need for a right to housing. This is not merely a semantic argument. The terminological distinction here is important. The concept of housing rights tells us what we have (or in some cases, ought to have), whilst the right to housing is a justificatory argument which addresses why we should have certain forms of provision in the first place. Housing rights tell us what this provision might be, but not why it ought to be there. The right to housing is therefore serving a deeper but more abstract purpose. There is a further important distinction here. Whilst housing rights might be ubiquitous, in the sense that all citizens have them, in practice statutory provision differs from state to state, as well as over time. This, of course, is entirely to be expected and relates to particular political priorities, power relations and available resources. Thus the statutory rights of a citizen in the UK tell us little about those in Ethiopia (except, of course, in the comparative sense that things would be better in Ethiopia if it experienced provision to the same level as the UK). However, the right to housing is a natural right and is thus attached to all persons. It is not a
Champion Briefs 212 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
King, Peter. "Housing As A Freedom Right." Housing Studies Vol. 18, No. 5, 661–672. February 10, 2017. Web. February 02, 2017.
Champion Briefs 213 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Since independence is relational, absent access to basic needs, we become dependent on others which violates an agent’s independence.
Weinrib, Ernest. "Poverty And Property In Kant." 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 795. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
In this account, the significance of one's survival is entirely relational. The gross corporeality of the body and its continued existence do not demand attention on the ground that life, taken on its own, forms a basic value in abstraction from one's interaction with others. 78 The standpoint of right is concerned only with the relationship between one person's freedom and another's action. Accordingly, the body has a juridical significance because as the organ through which human beings exercise their freedom, it imposes duties on others whose actions must be capable of coexisting with everyone's freedom. Similarly, when innate right is considered as a regime of equality, the body as the organ of one's freedom cannot rightfully become the means through which that freedom is compromised through subordination to or dependence on others. Thus, from the standpoint of right, continued existence matters not because of its unilateral importance to the person whose existence it is, but because of its role within a relationship of free, equal, and mutually non-dependent beings. ¶ The inevitable non-dependence that characterizes innate right disappears with the introduction, first provisional and then conclusive, of external property. Because ownership obtains even in the absence of a physical connection between the owner and what is owned, the accumulation of external things is now permissible. My range of rightful possibilities is now confined to what might be left over from others' efforts at accumulation. The possibility of amassing land makes it conceivable that, given the finitude of the earth's surface,79 all the land may be appropriated by others, leaving me literally with no place to exist except by leave of someone else. Moreover, it may turn out that I must now seek the food that is to sustain me from my neighbors. My continued existence may become dependent on the goodwill or sufferance of others, to whom I might then have to subordinate myself, making myself into a means for their ends, perhaps becoming their bondsman or slave. Moreover, my inability otherwise to satisfy my basic needs may make me dependent on the generosity of others, that is, on that to which I have no right. In contrast to the situation under innate right, the actions of others can now directly and radically affect my survival.
Champion Briefs 214 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
This establishes the duty of the state to provide basic needs.
Weinrib, Ernest. "Poverty And Property In Kant." 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 795. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
It is worth noting that the criteria for determining whether consent is possible arise from the conceptual implications of innate right itself, not from a calculus about the effect of property on collective or individual welfare. It may well be, as Locke famously observed, that instituting external property produces an enormous surplus compared to what preceded,80 and that the judgment of whether this would be an improvement or a worsening of any individual's situation depends on how that individual factors his or her degree of risk aversion into the calculation of the chances of capturing part of the surplus. For Kant, however, the issue is more constrained. Nondependence with respect to one's continued existence is the interest relevant to innate right, because that is almost all that is sheltered by the duty not to interfere with another's physical integrity and by the consequent availability of everything to everyone. The standards for ¶ judging whether one can consent to a property regime are provided by the normative ideas authorized by innate right: not probability and welfare, but innate equality and non-dependence. Whether consent to enter the civil condition is consistent with rightful honor raises not ¶ a quantitative issue ("Will I have less?"), but a relational one ("Will my existence change from not being to possibly being dependent on others' actions?"). In dealing with the duty of rightful honor, the focus remains where the universal principle of Right put it from the start: on the relationship between the freedom of one person and the action of another. ¶ Thus, the progression from innate right to the state's guarantee of all property holdings seems to reach an impasse. On the one hand, this progression is a normative necessity in which I am obligated to participate. On the other hand, innate right at least has the advantage that no person or aggregate of persons can engross the world's resources, shut me off from access to what is necessary for my existence, and thereby make the exercise of my freedom dependent on the beneficent or exploitative will of another. Consenting to this possible dependence would be inconsistent with my duty of rightful honor. The establishment of a civil condition, it seems, is both a fulfillment and an infringement of my duty. ¶ The public duty to support the poor breaks-and indeed is the only thing that can break-this impasse. The requirement allows all persons, consistently with their rightful honor, to consent to the establishment of a civil condition. The sovereign's assumption of the duty to support the poor makes up for the possible inaccessibility of the means of sustenance. The result is that in the civil condition, just as under innate right, no one's subsistence is dependent on the actions of others. Moreover, because the duty to establish a civil condition cannot proceed without ensuring everyone's sustenance, supporting the poor is as much a duty as is the establishment of a civil condition; the necessity of the end entails the necessity of the means required to effect it. Everyone must now consent to enter the civil condition, provided that the civil condition incorporates public support for the poor. ¶ Furthermore, the duty is incumbent on the people (and derivatively on the sovereign) rather than on any particular person. The institution of a regime of external property allows for the accumula¶ tion of property; no individual commits a compensable wrong simply by engaging in this process. Moreover, the prospect of impoverishment is created by the systemic legitimacy of acquisition, rather than by the appropriative acts of any particular acquirer. The systemic difficulty that property poses for innate right is resolved by the collective duty imposed on the people to provide subsistence as needed. The people, defined by Kant as the "multitude of men …that, because they affect one another, need a rightful condition under a will uniting them, a constitution (constitutio), so that they may enjoy what is laid down as right, '81 must collectively discharge the duty that is incidental to achieving that rightful condition.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 215 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
International law affirms- multiple multilateral treaties confirm.
Smith, Dara. "Home Is Where The Heart Is: Sexual Orientation Discrimination And The Right To Adequate Housing In I." eo. Wash. Int. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Several major multilateral instruments recognize housing rights, creating the strongest and most broad-based protections for the right to housing, and more clearly defining the right itself. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, explicitly states that “[e]veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including … housing.”6 Although the UDHR is not binding law, it was the first agreement expressing a unified group of nations’ intent to protect economic, social, and cultural rights, including the right to housing.7 The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 and currently having 149 parties, more clearly outlines the modern dimensions of the right to adequate housing.8 Article 11(1) of the ICESCR declares that “the State parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living …including adequate food, clothing, and housing.” It also asserts that these parties “will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right.”9 This is the most clear and authoritative expression of the right to housing in international law, and its near-universal acceptance in the international community gives even greater weight to the obligations it creates. In fact, the right to housing is the only right in the ICESCR which has an entire General Comment devoted to it.10 Several other broad-based multilateral treaties mention and/or expand the right to adequate housing. The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) all guarantee some measure of protection for various groups with regard to housing accommodations.11 For instance, CERD stresses the importance of eliminating housing segregation12 and specifically prohibits racial discrimination in the fulfillment and enjoyment of the right to housing.13 Likewise, CEDAW requires nations to ensure that women may enjoy “adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to housing.”14 The CRC contains a similar provision requiring that nations assist in providing adequate housing for children,15 and the CRSR mandates that nations treat refugees as favorably as other aliens with regard to housing.16 Finally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) contains provisions that directly relate to ensuring the right to adequate housing. The ICCPR’s anti-discrimination provisions are especially relevant in guaranteeing adequate housing for all. Article 2 guarantees equality with respect to the substantive rights provided by the Covenant itself: Each state party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.17 The UN Human Rights Committee has indicated that lack of adequate shelter threatens the right to be free from deprivation of life,18 and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has noted that forced evictions can
Champion Briefs 216 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Smith, Dara. "Home Is Where The Heart Is: Sexual Orientation Discrimination And The Right To Adequate Housing In I." eo. Wash. Int. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 217 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Regional international agreements also affirm.
Smith, Dara. "Home Is Where The Heart Is: Sexual Orientation Discrimination And The Right To Adequate Housing In I." eo. Wash. Int. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Regional international agreements reinforce the right to adequate housing. For example, the Charter of the Organization of American States lists “adequate housing for all sectors of the population” as one of its goals.24 Like the international community after the adoption of the UDHR, the Inter-American community has continued to support the protection of economic, social, and cultural rights in more recent instruments. The most sweeping instruments include the American Convention on Human Rights and, most notably, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (the “Protocol of San Salvador”). 25 Both instruments insist on the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights; the Protocol of San Salvador legally binds its parties to recognize these goals.26
Champion Briefs 218 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Even if international law is non-binding, the international consensus is largely shifting towards a guarantee of housing, creating binding international customs.
Smith, Dara. "Home Is Where The Heart Is: Sexual Orientation Discrimination And The Right To Adequate Housing In I." eo. Wash. Int. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
In addition to international instruments, increasingly robust customary international law protects the right to adequate housing. In general, an international custom is “such a usage as [has] obtained the force of a law.” 35 Evidence that a usage has “obtained the force of a law” includes an objective or “material” component – that is, an examination of diplomatic relations between states, practices of international bodies, and practices of individual states (such as laws, court decisions, and administrative actions).36 In addition, the determination that a practice has become customary law includes a subjective component known as opinio juris sive necessitas (or simply opinio juris), which is “the mutual conviction that the recurrence [of the practice] …is the result of a compulsory rule.”37 As such, in determining whether a practice has become international custom, it is necessary to examine both the consensus of international and domestic practices and the extent to which the principles are seen as binding obligations.38 Accordingly, the international instruments discussed above, even where nonbinding, are evidence of a customary norm of international law recognizing the right to adequate housing. The fact that both the relevant global treaties and regional instruments have such a large number of State Parties indicates a high level of international consensus on this point, as well as an apparent acceptance of an obligation to respect the right to housing. 39 In addition, the domestic law of many States demonstrates recognition of the right to adequate housing, further indicating this consensus and sense of obligation. At least fifty nations have incorporated the right to adequate housing into their Constitutions.40 The large and growing number of nations incorporating this right at such a basic level supports the notion that the right to adequate housing is increasingly accepted as part of international custom. Furthermore, more nations have begun to create statutory protections for the right to adequate housing, reflecting a belief that they are bound to respect this right. In some instances, national legislation contains general policy-oriented statements that protect the right to housing. For example, France’s Law of 31 May 1990 provides, “The guarantee of a right to housing constitutes a duty of solidarity for the nation as a whole,” and ensures “access to decent and independent housing.”41 A common variation on this type of law is the Philippines’ Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, which creates a national Urban Development program aiming to “[u]plift the conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens … by making available to them decent housing at affordable cost …”42 As noted by the United Nations Housing Rights Programme in its 2002 report, these general provisions not only provide sources of binding law, but also help to create a housing rights- friendly context in which more specific housing-related legislation can be interpreted.43 In addition to these general provisions, many nations have created more targeted legislative housing protections. Several states protect security of tenure by mandating property succession laws, as in Peru,44 or prohibiting forced evictions, as in the Philippines45 and the United Kingdom.46
Champion Briefs 219 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Smith, Dara. "Home Is Where The Heart Is: Sexual Orientation Discrimination And The Right To Adequate Housing In I." eo. Wash. Int. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Others, such as France47 and the United States,48 focus on provision of accessible housing through administrative programs. These programs both seek to provide housing to traditionally disadvantaged groups and to effectively allocate property among those who need it.49 Finally, and most relevantly for this discussion, many nations have enacted laws prohibiting housing discrimination. A particularly strong example of this type of legislation is Canada’s Human Rights Code, which guarantees equal treatment with regard to housing access.50 It also prohibits harassment by a landlord or other occupants directed towards members of groups protected from discrimination.51 These groups (as discussed in more detail below) include a more comprehensive set of statuses than explicitly mentioned in any of the international instruments, including age, citizenship status, and sexual orientation.52 Other nations’ legislation is more modest, protecting specific groups from discrimination in access to housing or in housing provisions. Uganda’s Land Act of 1998, for instance, requires that no determination about the ownership of land discriminate against women, children, or persons with disabilities.53 Likewise, the United States’ Americans with Disabilities Act ensures equal access to housing for persons with disabilities,54 and its Fair Housing laws protect against race- and gender-based discrimination in access to housing.55
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 220 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
The right to housing is key to rectify the relationship of dominance that currently exists between welfare administrators and recipients.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "The Right To Housing For Homeless People." School of the Built Environment, Scotland, UK. Centre for Housing Policy. February 10, 2017. Web. February 09, 2017.
There are some obvious reasons why enforceable legal rights to housing may be viewed as a progressive step in addressing homelessness. First and foremost, they may be seen as a[n] preferred alternative to what Goodin describes as ‘more odious forms of official discretion’ (1986, p.232). Those who administer welfare goods or services such as housing have power over claimants because they have an effective sanction against them (Spicker, 1984), and it can be argued that legal rights-based approaches create a counter-hierarchy of power by giving service users a ‘right of action’ against service providers (Kenna, 2005).
Champion Briefs 221 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A rights model of housing is key to undermining the relationship of dependence many homeless exist in, affirming their status as valuable citizens.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "The Right To Housing For Homeless People." School of the Built Environment, Scotland, UK. Centre for Housing Policy. February 10, 2017. Web. February 09, 2017.
Champion Briefs 222 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Kant AC: Obligations reliant on distributive justice violate the independence of benefactors by forcing them to become means to the ends of people in need.
Nozick, Robert. "Anarchy, State, And Utopia.". February 10, 1974. Web. February 06, 2017.
“Whether done through taxation on wages or on wages over a certain amount, or through seizure of ¶ profits, or through there being a big social pot so that it’s not clear what’s coming from where and what’s going where, [P]atterned principles of distributive justice involve appropriating the actions of other persons. Seizing the results of someone’s labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If people ¶ force you to do certain work, or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This process whereby they take this decision from you makes them a part-owner of you; it gives them a property right in you. Just as having such partial control and power of decision, by right, over an animal or inanimate object would be to have a property right.”
Champion Briefs 223 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Kant AC: The maxim of using one as a means to another’s end is not universalizable because it limits the freedom of the one to benefit the other- simultaneously willing for and against independence.
Nozick, Robert. "Anarchy, State, And Utopia.". February 10, 1974. Web. February 06, 2017.
There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done to him for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up. To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice, and no one else is entitled to force him upon him- least of all a state or government that claims his allegiance (as other individuals do not) and that therefore scrupulously must be neutral between its citizens.
Champion Briefs 224 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Kant AC: Establishing a right to welfare is incoherent since it confuses the distinction between imperfect and perfect duties.
King, Peter. "Can We Use Rights To Justify Housing Provision?" Housing, Theory and Society, 17:1, 27-34. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
One way around the distinction between culturalist and universal approaches can be seen in the work of O’Neill (1989, 1996). Her argument starts with the Kantian premise that rights depend on duties. Following Kant, she distinguishes between perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are those which relate to everyone and refer to those items which all individuals have by dint of their humanity. All humans have this attribute because it is that which defines humanity. In that sense we can “allocate” the duty to particular rights because the rights bearers are known We can assume that we have a duty to all humans that we come across. Imperfect duties are those which are conditional to circumstances. We only have a duty to certain individuals when we become aware of what their condition is. This presents us with a problem, in that it may not be possible to allocate duties because the particular rights bearers are not known to us. We cannot necessarily tell whether we have a duty to the person facing us, because we might not be aware of their housing, health care, educational and income needs. In a complex society we might admit to an obligation to certain individuals and groups because of their needs. However, we might not be able to identify specifically who should fall within this group, either because it is not externally obviously or because we will not come into contact with the majority of the members of this group. In this sense, then, there is no right which can be attached to the imperfect duty which I have to help the poorly housed and homeless, because I am not able readily to identify that group. In the abstract sense, then, some welfare rights do not “exist” because they cannot be pinned to duties. Of course, this does not mean that the material needs are not present. However, it does mean that we cannot rely on individual duties. According to O’Neill, imperfect duties can only be attributed by being institutionalised. She argues that, since “obligations to meet needs… often must be allocated before needs can be met” (1989:231), a process of institutionalization is required. This approach is a constructivist one, in that rights can only be constructed out of the institutionalization of obligations. Welfare rights, according to O’Neill’s view, do not then exist independently of the duties of individuals and the institutions which operationalise them. This is a relativist position, as the nature of the institutions cannot be a priori entities, but the argument is underpinned by a universal moral conception. I believe that O’Neill’s argument is an important one because it stresses several key points of importance to housing and other welfare services. First, one cannot discuss rights without the notions of obligation and duty. This means that one needs to be aware of the responsibility to fulfil needs. Secondly, it implies that housing rights are constructed and are not natural. Rights to housing are simply not claimable until a system of allocation has been established. Therefore, if housing and welfare rights are not institutionalised – if resources are not allocated to the rights claim – then there is simply no right. This places a practical limitation on rights claims. Thirdly, O’Neill’s argument adds further to the conclusion that rights-based arguments of themselves are an insufficient justification for welfare. We need to look for other elements that help to give rights claims their substance.
Champion Briefs 225 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Kant AC: Rights cannot ground welfare provision.
King, Peter. "Can We Use Rights To Justify Housing Provision?" Housing, Theory and Society, 17:1, 27-34. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
A further way of discussing rights is to see them, as international human rights theorists tend to, as first, second or third generation (Waldron, 1993a). First generation rights are traditional liberties and privileges, such as free speech and religious toleration. These can be seen as negative rights, in the sense that they involve governments refraining from some activity. Second generation rights can be defined as “socio-economic claims” (Waldron, 1993a:578), such as the right to education and housing. Third generation rights are rights to “non-individualised” goods. They have to do with communities and groups and might include minority language rights, rights to self-determination, etc. These rights are distinctive from first and second generation rights as they are rights to non-individualised goods which can only be enjoyed collectively. Thus, instead of rights being borne by individuals, they are embodied in groups and communities. Waldron (1987) suggests that this poses no logical or ethical difficulty so long as these group rights are asserted against some entity larger than individuals. There is an apparent connection here between this categorization and Marshall’s tri-partite division of rights as civil, social and political. Civil rights can be associated with first generation rights, social rights to second generation and political rights to third generation. However, the generational division extends the notion of rights beyond Marshall’s analysis. Marshall was referring to rights as the embodiment of citizenship within a state, whilst the third generation rights extend political rights beyond a single state and the rights of citizens to include environmental issues, emergent states and indeed suppressed nations seeking independence, such as East Timor. The notion of second generation rights has the most direct linkage to housing, and it is worth discussing them further. These can be defended on the grounds that one cannot exercise anything else unless one has the essential needs fulfilled. However, this has been challenged by philosophers such as Nozick (1974), who argue that, whilst one can base rights on claims of material needs, others already have property rights over the resources to be used fulfilling these needs. Nozick suggests that rights claims are based on entitlement and that these cannot be overridden to fulfil the needs of others. Waldron (1993a) takes issue with this, arguing the legitimacy of a rights-based argument which would leave many destitute. The dispute between Nozick and Waldron is essentially over whether first generation rights supersede second generation ones. As Waldron rightly suggests, If we want to say… that people have rights that may conflict, then rights have got to be linked to a theory of social justice that takes seriously the distributive issues they raise (1993a:580). It is not surprising, then, that Nozick embeds his negative view of rights in a theory of justice, which puts the acquisition of property rights at its centre. The legitimacy of rights therefore depends on how these rights are acquired. One therefore will need to dig beyond rights-based arguments if one is fully to ground welfare provision. This suggests that rights-based claims might not be able to provide a fully fledged justification for social housing provision.
Champion Briefs 226 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
A2 Libertarian NC: Status quo treatment of the homeless is a violation of negative freedom.
Waldron, Jeremy. "HOMELESSNESS AND THE ISSUE OF FREEDOM." 39 UCLA L. Rev. 1991-1992. February 10, 1992. Web. February 06, 2017.
Before going on, I want to say something about the conception of freedom I am using in this essay. Those who argue that the homeless (or the poor generally) have less freedom than the rest of us are often accused of appealing to a controversial, dangerous, and question-begging conception of "positive" freedom. 12 It is commonly thought that one has to step outside the traditional liberal idea of "negative" freedom in order to make these points. However, there is no need to argue about that here. The definition of freedom with which I have been working so far is as "negative" as can be. There is nothing unfamiliar about it (except perhaps the consistency with which it is being deployed). I am saying that a person is free to be someplace just in case he is not legally liable to be physically removed from that place or penalized for being there. At the very least, negative freedom is freedom from obstructions such as someone else's forceful effort to prevent one from doing something. 13 In exactly this negative sense (absence of forcible interference), the homeless person is unfree to be in any place governed by a private property rule (unless the owner for some reason elects to give him his permission to be there). The familiar claim that, in the negative sense of "freedom," the poor are as free as the rest of us-and that you have to move to a positive definition in order to dispute that-is simply false. 14 That private property limits freedom seems obvious.15 If I own a piece of land, others have a duty not to use it (without my consent) and there is a battery of legal remedies which I can use to enforce this duty as I please. The right correlative to this duty is an essential incident of ownership, and any enforcement of the duty necessarily amounts to a deliberate interference with someone else's action. It is true that the connection between property and the restriction of liberty is in some ways a contingent one: as Andrew Reeve notes, "even if I am entitled to use my property to prevent you from taking some action, I will not necessarily do S0."16 But there is a similar contingency in any juridical restriction. A repressive state may have laws entitling officials to crush dissent. In theory, they might choose to refrain from doing so on certain occasions; but we would still describe the law as a restriction on freedom if dissidents had to take into account the likelihood of its being used against them. Indeed we often say that the unpredictable element of official discretion "chills" whatever freedom remains in the interstices of its enforcement. Thus, in exactly the way in which we call repressive political laws restrictions on freedom, we can call property rights restrictions on freedom. We do not need any special definition of freedom over and above the negative one used by liberals in contexts that are more ideologically congenial. The definitional objection is sometimes based on a distinction between freedom and ability. 17 The homeless, it is said, are in the relevant sense free to perform the same activities as the rest of us; but the sad fact is that they do not have the means or the power or the ability to exercise these freedoms. This claim is almost always false. With the exception of a few who are so weakened by their plight that they are incapable of anything, the homeless are not unable to enter the privately-owned places from which they are banned. They can climb walls, open doors, cross thresholds, break windows, and so on, to gain entry to the premises from which the laws of
Champion Briefs 227 AFF: Housing is a Human Right AC March/April 2017
Waldron, Jeremy. "HOMELESSNESS AND THE ISSUE OF FREEDOM." 39 UCLA L. Rev. 1991-1992. February 10, 1992. Web. February 06, 2017.
Champion Briefs 228 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Federal Housing Vouchers Plan
The Housing Vouchers Plan makes the argument that providing universal access to housing vouchers to those in need would greatly improve overall societal welfare. This argument can be facilitated a few unique ways. First, you can take the race relations route by reading evidence that suggests that providing housing vouchers helps to break down racial divides by enabling minorities that have been gentrified in the past to break out of these impoverished and more high crime areas that allow them to have better access to schooling later on. Another path is to argue across the board health and well-being improvements, there are numerous cards that make the argument that by implementing housing vouchers obesity and well-being improves overall. Finally, you can take a more value based approach through the use of the Solow pieces of evidence that argue that in order to proliferate justice through society the government must implement a strict antighettoization policy that seeks to break down existing ghettos and socio economic divides. This argument is uniquely beneficial because she addresses other potential value criterions allowing you to easily answer those and frame them out of the round.
Some especially useful values that could be used are arguing through the lenses of deontology to advocate that the government has the moral obligation to help those citizens who are impoverished and that this is the best way to do it. Another tactic could be proposing a utilitarian approach in arguing that housing vouchers help to benefit society overall as the utility of helping those who are impoverished outweighs the marginal harms for society paying for it.
Champion Briefs 229 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Conservative state like Utah are embracing housing the homeless.
Surowiecki, James. "Home Free?" The New Yorker. September 22, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
It may seem surprising that a solidly conservative state like Utah has embraced an apparently bleeding-heart approach like giving homeless people homes. But in fact Housing First has become the rule in hundreds of cities around the country, in states both red and blue. And while the Obama Administration has put a lot of weight (and money) behind these efforts, the original impetus for them on a national scale came from the Bush Administration’s homelessness czar Philip Mangano. Indeed, the fight against homelessness has genuine bipartisan support. As Pendleton says, “People are willing to pay for this, because they can look at it and see that there are actually solutions. They can say, ‘Ah, it works.’ ” And it saves money.
Champion Briefs 230 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Rise in urban renewal is harming the housing progress the US has already made.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
The nation has, of course, made great progress in the housing area - one would be foolish not to recognize the reduction, for example, in slum housing and severe overcrowding over the past few decades. However, affordability problems have risen and now occupy first place in that sad contest. And the elimination or destruction of poor housing, via the urban renewal/highway programs and private market forces, has been achieved at the cost of massive disruption in people's lives and the growing gap between what people can afford to pay and the availability of housing units within their means. In the Preamble to the 1949 Housing Act, Congress asserted the National Housing Goal, which called for "the implementation as soon as feasible of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." (Affordability was not mentioned, as slum housing conditions were the nation's primary, most visible housing problem in the post-war period.) That goal was reiterated in the 1968 Housing Act, and in slightly different versions in the 1974 and 1990 Housing Acts. Congress has never followed up with the programs or provided resources to attain that goal. Nor have statutory declarations provided the basis for litigation to compel allocation of the needed resources. The 1968 Act took the brave step of setting forth a 10-year numerical target - 26 million units (6 million of which were for low- and moderate-income households) - and mandating year-by-year progress reports. But the effort failed by a considerable margin, and never again was Congress foolish enough to risk such embarrassment. By contrast, in the health and education areas, the nation has at least set specific goals and timetables - a good first step. In the mid-1990s the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services laid out specific health objectives to be achieved by the end of the century. After reporting some progress, the Department launched "Healthy People 2010," with updated goals. In the education area, Congress passed in 1994 the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which identified eight national educational goals pertaining to school readiness and completion, student achievement and citizenship, teacher education and professional development, and parental participation. It also called for the high school graduation rate to increase to at least 90 percent by the year 2000, a dramatic reduction in the dropout rate and the elimination of the gaps in high school graduation rates between students from minority backgrounds and their non- minority counterparts. And of course, more recently, the No Child Left Behind Act, while controversial, has set specific goals in the education area. Nothing even remotely comparable exists in the area of housing, save a commitment by some states and localities to 10-year plans to end homelessness - a worthy goal, to be sure, but light-years away from a Right to Decent, Affordable Housing.
Champion Briefs 231 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Grassroots pressure is needed to solve homelessness in conjunction with political action.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
No simple, quick answers here, but a few ending thoughts. We need to make politicians and candidates - for local, state and federal offices - speak to the housing problem and commit to effective ameliorative programs. And that in turn requires grassroots pressure. We need to emphasize housing's links to problems in the areas of health, education, income support, food, crime, employment, immigration, economic and community development. In doing so, we will create coalitions of social justice activists whose power will grow exponentially. Selective litigation may help as well. There are examples of social justice gains via lawsuits in other areas - ending legally sanctioned segregation in public schools, abolishing the poll tax, requiring due process hearings before government aid is terminated, facilitating receipt of welfare support by eliminating barriers based on interstate movement. The housing area is ripe for similar approaches, building on similar legal theories and laws governing public benefits, child welfare, mental health and other programs. We won't have a conservative/reactionary national administration forever, and the Congressional election results (in particular, having Maxine Waters as the incoming chair of the House subcommittee that deals with housing matters, Jack Reed or Chuck Schumer as her Senate counterpart) are a hopeful sign. It's time to think seriously about mounting a public and political campaign to make decent, affordable housing a right for all Americans.
Champion Briefs 232 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing Vouchers do not lead to an increase in crime but rather a potential decrease.
Lens, Michael. "The Impact Of Housing Vouchers On Crime In US Cities And Suburbs." Urban Studies. June 01, 2013. Web. February 06, 2017.
There is a growing body of work that examines the relationships between subsidised housing and crime, largely focusing on these relationships at the neighbourhood level. This paper attempts to identify whether there are aggregate effects across cities. The results suggest that recent controversies over increased voucher presence in suburban communities are fuelled by misinformation—there is no observable relationship between city or suburban crime rates and the proportions in those communities. If there is a relationship at all, these data suggest that there is a weak, negative relationship between vouchers and crime in large cities and there is no relationship at all between vouchers and crime in suburban areas. A sensible explanation for this lack of a relationship is simply that voucher households do not alter the crime landscape in metropolitan areas and, if they do, they do not do so to the extent that is detectable at such a large level of geography. However, these findings are consistent with much of the growing body of work at the neighbourhood level, summarised earlier
Champion Briefs 233 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing Vouchers do not lead to an increase in crime but rather a potential decrease.
Lens, Michael. "The Impact Of Housing Vouchers On Crime In US Cities And Suburbs." Urban Studies Journal. June 01, 2006. Web. February 06, 2017.
There is a growing body of work that examines the relationships between subsidised housing and crime, largely focusing on these relationships at the neighbourhood level. This paper attempts to identify whether there are aggregate effects across cities. The results suggest that recent controversies over increased voucher presence in suburban communities are fuelled by misinformation—there is no observable relationship between city or suburban crime rates and the proportions in those communities. If there is a relationship at all, these data suggest that there is a weak, negative relationship between vouchers and crime in large cities and there is no relationship at all between vouchers and crime in suburban areas. A sensible explanation for this lack of a relationship is simply that voucher households do not alter the crime landscape in metropolitan areas and, if they do, they do not do so to the extent that is detectable at such a large level of geography. However, these findings are consistent with much of the growing body of work at the neighbourhood level, summarised earlier
Champion Briefs 234 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing Vouchers are key to breaking down racial subordination.
Solow, Sara. "Racial Justice At Home: The Case For Opportunity-Housing Vouchers." Yale law and policy review. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
The Obama Administration has made a bold commitment to help the country's poorest urban populations. And, importantly, the Administration rightly has recast the goal from providing residents of ghettos wit housing to providing residents of ghettos with better residential communities. As the Administration sets out to implement its new vision of urban transformation, it should bear in mind the normative justifications for and the policy efficacy of deconcentration. From a normative perspective, justice in the liberal state demands that the racial ghetto itself disappear. In other words, the government must deliver upon an antighettoization theory. From a public policy perspective, the most efficacious means of implementing the antighettoization principle is to provide minority households with the capability of moving out of ghettos and into communities of opportunity. And though many past deconcentration programs have confronted demand-side, supply-side, and success-oriented roadblocks, there are creative approaches as exemplified by the plaintiffs' proposed remedy in Thompson for overcoming such obstacles. This Note has proposed that HUD implement a national opportunity housing vouchers program, likely as a component of the extant Section 8 program, to implement the antighettoization principle. The Obama Administration would not need to seek any new authority for this program because the Federal Housing Act already instructs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development "affirmatively to further" fair housing,175 and the opportunity-housing vouchers program would be oriented around exactly that mission. The two obstacles that the Administration would have to overcome would be, first, to attain sufficient funding from Congress for opportunity housing vouchers, and second, to overcome strict scrutiny review by the Supreme Court. With respect to funding, the Administration would have to make the case that although an opportunity-housing vouchers program would incur a substantial upfront cost, it would be cheaper and quicker than the alternative strategy of transforming every urban ghetto into a revitalized neighborhood. With respect to the Supreme Court, the Administration would have to show that although its program was race-conscious, the government has a compelling justification for pursuing deconcentration and that the program is narrowly tailored to its goal.176 The challenges to effectuating antighettoization ideals are considerable. But the cost of not addressing these challenges is the perpetuation of racial subordination through the mechanism of the racial ghetto for years to come. The Obama Administration has put urban justice on the presidential agenda; now it is time to delive
Champion Briefs 235 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Justice demands that antighettoization is the preferred housing framework in the US.
Solow, Sara. "Racial Justice At Home: The Case For Opportunity-Housing Vouchers." Yale law and policy review. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Some have argued that a "choice-based" theory of justice should anchor housing law. Under the choice-based theory, justice is understood as demanding not just the right to live in any community of opportunity, but the right to live in the community of opportunity you choose, even if this means staying rooted in the ghetto and having the ghetto be transformed. Part of the rationale behind this theory is that minorities should not be forced largely white neighborhoods in order to experience society's socioeconomic opportunities. This Note advocates for antighettoization theory rather than a choice-based theory as the correct framework for housing law for two reasons. First, antighettoization promotes individual rights in a manner more consistent with how rights are protected in liberal democracies generally. Under an antighettoization framework, individual rights connote one's ability to live in a community of opportunity, thereby sharing in society's coveted resources. Throughout the liberal state the job market, political market, and education system individual rights similarly confer the ability to access societal resources.77 Under the choice-based theory of justice, meanwhile, individual rights are understood as conferring access to specific life outcomes willed by the individual. Again, the choice-based framework posits that a person has the right not just to live in any community of opportunity, but also the right to live in the specific community of opportunity that he or she wills (even if a revitalized ghetto does not yet exist). If applied throughout the liberal state, this conception of rights would be transformative and unworkable. For instance, the right to higher education would entail the individual right to design a new preferred university. Moreover, the fact that antighettoization theory expects individuals to sacrifice their ideal preferences is not fatal. The liberal state constantly expects individuals to make personal sacrifices of effort, of time, or of preferences to compete for society's opportunities. The requirement of sacrifice does not deplete justice; it is what a just provision of opportunities most commonly entails
Champion Briefs 236 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Choice based housing frameworks endorse racist enclaves.
Solow, Sara. "Racial Justice At Home: The Case For Opportunity-Housing Vouchers." Yale law and policy review. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Second, antighettoization is the preferable normative framework for housing law because a choice-based theory runs the risk of endorsing racial enclaves. Under a choice-based theory, one central reason why minorities must enjoy the right to choose living in the ghetto is that all persons should be able if they desire to live in a neighborhood where they constitute the racial majority.79 In other words, a choice-based theory posits that living in a physical space where one's racial identity is reified around her is an individual right the government should support. The problem with this rationale is that it contradicts one of the orienting philosophies of liberal democracies; it endorses segregated living spaces rather than diverse, open ones. Though democratic governments do and should provide minority groups with support to cultivate their cultural resources, tying such support to geographical locations would create physical islands of exclusion. In sum, antighettoization is a powerful improvement over the current frameworks animating our housing law. It conceives of the racial ghetto as the substantive injustice to be corrected, and it calls for affirmative-action style programs that would enable racial minorities now confined to the ghetto to move to communities of opportunity. Antighettoization theory works as a theory of justice specific to the housing market; given the exceptional immorality of the racial ghetto, it is logically defensible to promote antighettoization but also to argue that it should be limited to housing rather than extended to other societal forums that cause disparate impacts. And finally, antighettoization is a more attractive means of ensuring justice in the housing market than a choice-based theory. Antighettoization conceives of individual rights in a manner more appropriate for, and in harmony with, liberal democracies, and it avoids facilitating minority-group rights in a way that would encourage geographic segregation
Champion Briefs 237 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Solvency Advocate- Reform Section 8 to include new opportunity housing vouchers.
Solow, Sara. "Racial Justice At Home: The Case For Opportunity-Housing Vouchers." Yale law and policy review. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
To implement the antighettoization theory of justice for housing law that this Note proposes, the United States should reform Section 8 to include a new "opportunity-housing vouchers" program. In Section ILA, this Note explains what an opportunity-housing vouchers program would entail and why it is preferable, from a public policy perspective, to other programs that might advance antighettoization. Granted, past efforts to deconcentrate the ghetto through voucher-based programs have not always worked. The congressionally authorized Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program from the 1990s most significantly failed to produce lasting residential mobility or socioeconomic gains for most families that participated.80 In Section II.B, however, this Note demonstrates that an opportunity-housing vouchers program can be designed to avoid the pitfalls of previous housing mobility initiatives and to improve upon the MTO model. Drawing on the remedy requested by the plaintiffs in a recent housing lawsuit, this Note shows that dconcentration can be achieved at the administrative level and that it can be done well
Champion Briefs 238 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Increasing Housing vouchers are key to community integration.
Holloway, Adrienne. "Research From The City To The Suburbs: Characteristics Of Suburban Neighborhoods Where Chicago Housi." Hindawi Publishing Corporation Urban Studies. February 08, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
Data from this study suggests that racism and classism, in particular, oppressive behavior that is made evident through overt, conscious actions and conduct as well as through unconscious, insidious attitudes and perspectives, limits access to the wider suburban geography. Consequently, existing public policies, in the form of housing policies and the HCV Program, are not capable of achieving stated goals of moving persons to diverse, less impoverished communities. Government, from equity and social justice positions, should invest resources and take deliberate action to eliminate such barriers so that targeted groups enjoy the opportunity of choosing communities in which to live, without being subjected to unfair practices. Continuous funding of mobility programs is a method that can achieve long-term success in economic and racial integration of particular regions. Annual funding levels of the HCV program have been on a continuous decline for several years. Recent federal government sequestration cuts and other funding cuts resulted in a decline of $854 million in funding and an estimated 140,000 HCV that were not renewed for 2013 [89]. Declining HCV budgets thwarts integration efforts availed by the program. Consistent funding enables local public housing authorities to renew vouchers for eligible households and award additional vouchers to new households, ultimately increasing integrated settlement patterns in targeted areas.
Champion Briefs 239 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Public Housing Deconcentrates Poverty: Public housing intensifies the concentration of poverty.
Galster, George. "U.S. Assisted Housing Programs And Poverty Deconcentration: A Critical Geographic Review." Springer Netherlands. May 16, 2013. Web. February 06, 2017.
At a descriptive level, three conclusions can be drawn regarding the impact of U.S. federal assisted housing policy on deconcentrating poverty. First, residents of U.S. public housing on average reside in signifi cantly more disadvantaged neighbourhoods compared to participants in any other assisted housing program. Second, residents of other types of site-based assisted housing programs (particularly LIHTC) do not reside in significantly different residential environments than tenant-based HCV holders. HCV holders fare somewhat better in neighbourhood poverty rates than equivalent households who do not receive subsidies, but the comparative differences are even smaller when the LIHTC program is compared to equivalent private renters. Third, HCV holders do not substantially improve their neighbourhood circumstances with subsequent moves; indeed if their initial move is (perhaps with counselling assistance) to a low-income, predominantly white neighbourhood, their subsequent moves are generally to higher-poverty, higher-minority share neighbourhoods. In other words, the public housing program historically intensified the concentration of poverty and subsequent demand- side and supply-side policies have had relatively little impact in improving the neighbourhood conditions of recipients.
Champion Briefs 240 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Housing Vouchers Improve test scores: Housing vouchers fail to improve students test scores.
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda: Journal Of Education." Taylor & Francis. February 29, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
Research generally supports a correlation between social class and educational experiences and outcomes (see Knapp and Woolverton 2004; Sirin 2005 for a review), but the evidence for benefits of moving low-income students to low-poverty schools and to suburbs is actually mixed. Studies show a strong correlation between family SES and the school and classroom environment the student has access to (Reynolds and Walberg 1992), school quality (e.g. teacher quality, instructional resources, teacher–student ratio) (Wenglinsky 1998), and the relationship between school personnel and parents (Watkins 1997). The specific correlation between poverty and low academic performance, school completion, and other education indicators is also welldocumented (Anyon 2005), as is the relationship between race/ethnicity and educational outcomes (Darling-Hammond 2004). These correlations are, however, moderated by various factors such as school location, race, and school level (Sirin 2005). Some research found positive effects of moving low-income students to suburbs under the Chicago Gatreaux housing desegregation program (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2002). However, results from the national Moving to Opportunity program appear to show no significant increase in test scores at any age for students who were assigned housing vouchers to move from public housing to lower poverty neighborhoods (Sandbonmatsu 2006).
Champion Briefs 241 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Turn: Federal involvement in housing extends the neoliberal praxis and reproduces gendered biases.
Fritz, Marie. "Rethinking Gender In U.S. Housing Policy." Penn State University Press. November 02, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
Throughout the last decade there was a wave of literature on housing policy changes, “welfare reform,” and shifts towards prioritizing market-based policy initiatives. Many scholars have sounded the alarm of what these policies meant for our national social and economic commitments and the future of social provisions in the United States. For example, Neil Smith argues that the 1990s marked a shift from the Keynsian and New Deal economics towards a revanchist urban regime, in which urban policy represents a backlash against liberal/progressive policy making. This movement includes intense policing by the state and neo-liberal market reforms. 34 Similarly, neo-liberalism, domicide, and other geo-political catchphrases are used to understand the proliferation of marginalization. While these explorations are important and insightful, and urban scholars certainly have reason to worry, historically, revanchist ideology has been present for women and minorities attempting to obtain affordable housing absent of government policing. The severe societal costs of welfare state dismantling and the privatization of housing policy about which Smith warns should not be underestimated; however, focusing on recent neo-liberal reforms and redevelopment governance practices as the object of criticism obscures nuclear-family hegemony. These critiques divert attention away from understanding the multiple ways in which United States’ housing policy has reproduced class, race, and gender bias since the federal government was involved in housing.
Champion Briefs 242 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers Fight Gender inequality: US housing policies need to be fundamentally reconsidered or they will continue to reinforce gendered and heteronormative practices.
Fritz, Marie. "Rethinking Gender In U.S. Housing Policy." Penn State University Press. November 02, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
Women’s citizenship in relation to the right to housing has always been qualified by one’s ability to perform well in the market, partner with a breadwinner, withstand substandard housing conditions in public housing, or get by with little to no government assistance. Although the recent housing lending and foreclosure crisis has raised an interest in housing policy, most observations are grounded in the same gendered and racial assumptions that were pervasive prior to the crisis. There have been few challenges, in both political science and the policymaking arena, to the widespread ideological issues embedded in federal housing policy. Without seriously exploring nuclear-family hegemony as it relates to housing planning and practices, the United States will continue to build upon troubling undemocratic gendered and heteronormative practices and ideologies.
Champion Briefs 243 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers help non-tradtional families: Housing vouchers reinforce the nuclear family trope and adversely harm non- traditional families.
Fritz, Marie. "Rethinking Gender In U.S. Housing Policy." Penn State University Press. November 02, 2009. Web. February 06, 2017.
Nuclear family hegemony, which was previously constructed through structural inequality and blatantly discriminatory policies, became increasingly punitive during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. The system of separate benefits for nuclear families and non-traditional households that was created decades earlier made public and subsidized housing ripe for attack. During the 1980s there were severe cuts in funding for public housing, and funding for low-income housing remained low through the Bush administration. A corruption crisis at the Department of Housing and Urban Development brought more attention to homelessness but also the need for public housing reform. Unfortunately, the political consensus between liberals and conservatives that was required to heal the wounds from the earlier scandal, along with changing attitudes aimed at addressing drugs and crime in and around public housing, resulted in the Housing Act of 1990. 26 The major elements of the legislation included increased use of vouchers and certificates, increased local and private control over housing, encouraged more homeownership, and theoretically integrated social services into low-income housing planning. While the additional social services and service coordination funding was welcomed by many low-income communities, many of the other provisions in the legislation had a disproportionate negative impact on women, particularly those affected by urban renewal programs that involved displacement. Households impacted by public housing demolition and relocation might be eligible for housing vouchers; however, since source of income is not a federally protected fair housing class, there is no guarantee that residents being displaced could obtain rental housing with the vouchers. Even without displacement, the increased use of housing vouchers as a replacement for affordable housing production meant that more households were forced to seek housing on the open rental market. Far more difficult is the loss of kinship networks that non- traditional households rely on in low- and moderateincome neighborhoods and in affordable housing communities for child care, emergency cash assistance, and other basic needs. These household forms and networks of care–whether extended family, “othermothers”, neighbors, community based organizations, or church members–exist alongside traditional families; they provide social cohesion and constitute important, intentional support networks. Housing policy that leads to widespread neighborhood transitions and displacement undermines these networks of support that are crucial resistance-building and survival techniques for many non-nuclear family households.
Champion Briefs 244 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Social housing services are down in the US.
Pauly, Bernadette. "Housing And Harm Reduction: What Is The Role Of Harm Reduction In Addressing Homelessness?" International Journal of Drug Policy. March 15, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
In Canada and the U.S., it has been the erosion of the social housing supply and privatization of the housing market that left many people homeless and living in extreme poverty (Gaetz, 2010; Quigley & Raphael, 2001; Quigley, Raphael, & Smolensky, 2001; Shapcott, 2009). Housing can provide a safe haven and secure place to support recovery from trauma and homelessness as well as reduce the harms of drug use by providing safer environments for people who use drugs (Forchuk, Ward-Griffin, Csiernik, & Turner, 2006; Shaw, 2004; Shubert & Bernstine, 2007).
Champion Briefs 245 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing Vouchers are key to allowing those who are extremely impoverished to purchase houses in less poor areas.
Park, Miseon. "Housing Vouchers As A Means Of Poverty Deconcentration And Race Desegregation: Patterns And Factors." SpringerLink. October 09, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
Nearly one out of four renters, 18.6 million households as of 2008, face severe cost burdens that spend more than half of their incomes on housing (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 2010). Voucher holders in Cuyahoga County live with less than $11,000 income on average. At this level, their monthly housing costs would have to be no more than $275 in order to meet the affordability standard, which is 30 % of income toward housing cost. Regardless of their extremely low income levels, voucher recipients have lived in decent quality houses whose rent levels are around $650 since the differences have been subsidized. The Housing Choice Voucher Program contributes to decreasing the income-housing cost mismatch for low-income renters who otherwise struggle to meet their housing needs. In this way, rental subsides allow low-income voucher recipients to live out of poverty-stricken neighborhood where cheap rental units are overcrowded. Results presented here on patterns and factors of voucher concentration provide several policy implications. Considering policy goal achievement, the results are mixed in terms of poverty and race deconcentration through the voucher program. Hotspot analysis shows that voucher holders have clustered together but concentration patterns spread out from the central city to suburbs. Minority populations are a significant predictor of voucher concentration, which implies that the voucher recipients tend to live in neighborhoods with the high proportion of minorities (African American and Hispanic, but not Asian). In terms of poverty deconcentration, however, the voucher program has contributed to dispersing poor households with rental subsidies. The poverty rates variable is a significant and meaningful predictor of voucher concentration with a threshold point. Poverty rates of suburban areas are usually above the threshold point founded. This implies that the voucher recipients are more likely to live in low poverty neighborhoods and less likely to live in high poverty ones. This is also important considering the fact that the majority (over 80 %) of the recipients is in the extremely low income group.
Champion Briefs 246 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing vouchers reduce obesity of recipients by 40-50 percent.
Ludwig, Jens. "Long-Term Neighborhood Effects On Low-Income Families: Evidence From Moving To Opportunity." American Economic Association. May 01, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
Looking at broad indices of outcomes that were pre-specified for the interim MTO data, we see suggestive (but not always statistically sig nificant) signs that physical and mental health outcomes improved for adult women and female youth. We see very large MTO impacts on spe cific health measures, particularly those related to extreme obesity and diabetes. Although we acknowledge that measuring candidate mechanisms like diet, exercise and access to health care is intrinsically challenging, and that our available data on these factors are quite limited, it is note worthy that MTO moves reduced extreme obesity and diabetes by fully 40-50 percent for adults while generating almost no detectable changes in our measures of these candidate mediators. One hypothesis for why MTO improved physical health is because of MTO's beneficial impacts on neighborhood safety, and subsequent gains in mental health—including measures of psy chological distress. This safety-stress-health hypothesis is also consistent with our finding that the majority of MTO households signed up for MTO because of concerns about crime and violence.
Champion Briefs 247 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Vouchers improve societal well being and improve youth outcomes.
Ludwig, Jens. "Long-Term Neighborhood Effects On Low-Income Families: Evidence From Moving To Opportunity." American Economic Association. May 01, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
The sizes of these gender differences in MTO impacts were smaller in the long-term than interim data, just as the difference across MTO groups in neighborhood conditions was smaller at the time of the long-term surveys than interim surveys. These patterns suggest youth outcomes may be more affected by contemporaneous neighborhood conditions than accumulated exposure to neighborhood environments, or what Sampson (2012) calls "situational" neigh borhood effects as opposed to "developmental" neighborhood effects. The MTO data make clear that neighborhood environments have important impacts on the overall quality of life and well-being of low-income families despite the mixed pattern of impacts on traditional "objective" outcome measures, including null effects on earnings and education. Ludwig et al. (2012) show that a one standard deviation decline in census tract poverty rates (about 13 percentage points) is associated with an increase in SWB that is about the same size as the difference in SWB between households whose annual incomes differ by $13,000—a very large amount given that the average control group family's annual income in the long-term survey is just $20,000
Champion Briefs 248 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing Vouchers Reduce the likely hood that recipients will be in high crime neighborhoods.
Lens, Michael. "The Impact Of Housing Vouchers On Crime In US Cities And Suburbs." Urban Studies Journal. June 01, 2006. Web. February 07, 2017.
Using a number of different data sources, this article has described the extent to which voucher households are exposed to neighborhood crime, as compared with public housing residents, LIHTC tenants, and other poor renter households, in a representative sample of U.S. cities. Our key finding is that, overall, in 2000, voucher households occupied significantly lower crime neighborhoods than LIHTC and public housing tenants and slightly lower crime neighborhoods than poor renters as a whole. Voucher households are less likely to live in neighborhoods with particularly high crime than any of these comparison groups. Interestingly, the safety benefits of vouchers appear to be especially pronounced for Black voucher holders. Black voucher holders lived in safer neighborhoods than other Black renters and Black poor households. In sum, vouchers appear to be helping low-income households reach safer neighborhoods or at least avoid neighborhoods that are the least safe. Given the growing evidence about the importance of crime in shaping children's outcomes, this greater access provides an important argument favor of switching from reliance on production-based housing to reliance on vouchers. In the long run, our findings also suggest that, if given the means, a greater share of low-income households would be able to avoid very high-crime neighborhoods.10 It is worth underscoring that, by limiting our analyses to large cities, we are likely overstating the neighborhood crime rates faced by voucher holders and LIHTC tenants, because we are omitting the large number of them who live in suburban communities. By 2000, voucher holders - and LIHTC tenants - were much more likely than public housing tenants to live in the suburbs (Devine et al, 2003). Although central city and suburban poverty rates have been converging in recent years, crime rates are still lower, on average, in suburban communities than they are in central cit- ies (Ellen and O'Regan, 2009). Finally, because patterns of suburbanization may differ across races, the relative exposure to crime of different subgroups might differ in the suburbs.
Champion Briefs 249 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing Vouchers assist in promoting economically mixed neighborhoods, and reduced recipients likelihood of residing in extremely impoverished neighborhoods.
Teater, Barbra. "Residential Mobility Of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Recipients: Assessing Changes In Po." Department of Housing and Urban Development. February 10, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
In terms of poverty, the results show the percentage of HCV program recipients who resided in low-poverty neighborhoods nearly doubled from the years 1999–2005, and the majority of recipients (81.7%) resided in either normal- or low-poverty neighborhoods. The percentage of recipients who resided in high-poverty neighborhoods had declined by nearly 5% from 1999 to 2005. Such results provide support for the congruence between HCV program policy goals and locational outcomes of recipients. Although the results show favorably on the HCV program, this data only provides locational outcomes of recipients at one point in time and does not take into account the subsequent neighborhoods of recipients who are mobile. To capture the change in poverty experienced by recipients who are mobile, the percent of individuals below the poverty level was tracked for each recipient’s location, thus revealing the change in poverty with each subsequent move. The results of the regression analysis reveal that the act of residential mobility did not predict a change in poverty, but individual-level factors (age and race) contributed to whether an HCV program recipient experienced a change in poverty. Therefore, moving while in the program did not predict that a recipient will move to a higher or lower poverty concentrated neighborhood during their tenure in the program. Again, this study provides support for the HCV program by demonstrating that recipients who move to new locations over time have not experienced a net change in poverty with moves. The results suggest that the HCV program has produced outcomes that are consistent with policy goals and has promoted economically mixed neighborhoods. Despite the insignificance of mobility on change in poverty, race was significant in explaining change in poverty in that Blacks experience a greater positive change in poverty over Whites. The results suggest that the HCV program was particularly beneficial to Black recipients in regard to promoting economically mixed neighborhoods as Blacks were shown to move to lower poverty neighborhoods over time. Exploring the reasons why Blacks moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods over time is beyond the scope of this study, but such findings do illustrate that the mobility aspect of the HCV program may be an important component in helping to reduce poverty concentration, particularly of Black recipients. Alternatively, the results of the MANOVA analysis revealed that race does not account for a significant amount of variance in change in racial composition of neighborhoods. In fact, race, age, gender, number in family, and the interaction of race and gender were all found to be nonsignificant. Annual income was entered as a control variable, yet was found to be significant in predicting racial composition in neighborhoods (p < 0.01). Annual income was shown to account for 4.2% of the variance in racial composition. When examining the univariate results, race still remained nonsignificant in predicting change in percent Whites or change in percent Blacks. Again, annual income was significant on both dependent variables and accounted for 4.2% of the variance in
Champion Briefs 250 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Teater, Barbra. "Residential Mobility Of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Recipients: Assessing Changes In Po." Department of Housing and Urban Development. February 10, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 251 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing voucher programs reduce psychological distress and depression for women by 3.5 percent.
Turner , Margery. "Why Housing Choice And Mobility Matter." Urban Institute. August 17, 2010. Web. February 07, 2017.
Women and girls who moved with MTO vouchers experienced significant improvements in mental and physical health, probably stemming from their reduced exposure to violence, disorder, and harassment. The interim MTO evaluation showed girls in the experimental group reported significantly lower rates of psychological distress and anxiety than those in the control group. For adult women, psychological distress and depression were reduced by 3.5 percentage points, or over one-fifth, relative to the control group (Orr et al. 2003). To put this in perspective, reductions of this magnitude are comparable to that achieved by some of the most successful drug treatments for depression and related disorders. The significance of MTO’s impacts on safety, stress, and women’s health should not be understated. Maternal depression is recognized as a major risk factor for the healthy emotional development of young children (Popkin, Leventhal, and Weisman 2010). However, the interim evaluation found no evidence that MTO contributed to significant educational, employment, or earnings gains, as had been hoped. And MTO boys had not shared in the benefits enjoyed by MTO girls (Briggs, Popkin, and Goering 2010). Ongoing experimentation with mobility counseling programs offers the potential to help low-income families achieve even greater gains by moving to opportunity-rich neighborhoods. Although MTO families moved to low-poverty neighborhoods, few moved to the suburbs or to majority-white neighborhoods. And few MTO families stayed long in their new neighborhoods; instead, most moved several times over subsequent years, ending up in moderate-poverty, central-city neighborhoods (Turner and Briggs 2008).
Champion Briefs 252 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing vouchers improve labor supply.
Newman, Sandra. "The Long-Term Effects Of Housing Assistance On Work And Welfare." Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. December 01, 2009. Web. February 07, 2017.
Leonesio's second condition is that the offered good must be, in economists' par? lance, a "Hicks substitute" for leisure. This means that if the price of the good were reduced, participants would increase their labor supply. An example of a Hicks sub? stitute is child care. If the cost of high- quality child care were lowered, it is likely that many stay-at-home mothers would enter the workforce. This same logic under? lies arguments for why housing vouchers, which provide low- income families with the ability to move to neighborhoods with better access to job opportunities, may have positive effects on labor supply. In this case, the price of decent housing in more advantageous neighborhoods is being lowered. As another example, lower priced housing might allow families living in dilapidated units or doubled up with relatives or friends to move into their own physically adequate dwellings, potentially reducing stress, improving health, and increasing labor supply. Similar effects might occur if housing assistance enables women to escape abusive partners, or if lower housing prices in safer neighborhoods allow mothers to feel m
Champion Briefs 253 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Housing vouchers lead to consumers of them to be offered worse schooling.
Deng, Lan. "Comparing The Effects Of Housing Vouchers And Low-Income Housing Tax Credits On Neighborhood Integra." Sage Jounal. September 01, 2007. Web. February 07, 2017.
School quality is also an issue for vouchers. Vouchers promise to offer the poor the same level of participation in housing markets as other groups in the society. Yet the school quality available to many voucher families is inferior to that available to other renters. If lack of information has limited voucher families’ residential choices, local housing authorities should provide more housing-search counseling to families with children. More important, since units in good-school areas often ask for higher rents, housing authorities may also consider raising the payment standards for these locations, particularly since HUD has granted them the flexibility to do so. Finally, as noted in the school-quality analysis, the lack of data on LIHTC tenants prevents me from identifying which units are occupied by families with children. This reflects a major limitation in the existing data collection efforts. That is, we know much more about the characteristics of voucher families than we know about families living in LIHTC units. As a result, no studies, including this one, have been able to compare the neighborhoods in which equally poor households in both programs live. Future studies should try to address this by collecting more data on LIHTC families.
Champion Briefs 254 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers improve employment: Receiving vouchers decrease quarterly employment by 3.6 percent.
Jacob , Brian. "The Effects Of Housing Assistance On Labor Supply: Evidence From A Voucher Lottery." American Economic Association. February 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
Our estimates allow us to soundly reject the hypothesis that housing voucher receipt is work enhancing, or even work neutral. We estimate that voucher receipt reduces quarterly employment rates by around 3.6 percentage points (about 6 percent of the control complier mean), reduces earnings by around $329 per quarter (10 per- cent of the CCM), increases TANF receipt rates by around 1.6 percentage points (15 percent of the CCM), and increases receipt of any social program benefits by 6.7 percentage points (12 percent of the CCM). We also find that the treatment group increases labor supply slightly during the periods before they are offered a voucher, consistent with the prediction of the life cycle labor supply model that people may shift work effort towards those periods with relatively higher wage rates (although this effect is quite small - around 0.6 percentage points, or about 1 percent of the control mean). How do we reconcile our results, which suggest persistent and even growing work disincentive effects from housing vouchers, with those from the Welfare to Work (WtW) voucher experiment, which found short-term negative effects on labor supply that seemed to dissipate after the first year following random assignment? We believe the two sets of findings are not as contradictory as they would initially appear. As noted above, the WtW experiment limited eligibility mostly to families who are on welfare. Our own data, which includes a more general sample of low- income families, shows that the estimated effect of utilizing a voucher on labor force participation may be smaller for families on TANF at baseline than for other fami- lies. Indeed our IV estimates for TANF families are not inconsistent with the WtW estimates; ours are just more precisely estimated given our much larger samp.
Champion Briefs 255 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers increase earnings: Housing vouchers reduce average annual earning of recipients by 1,316 dollars.
Jacob , Brian. "The Effects Of Housing Assistance On Labor Supply: Evidence From A Voucher Lottery." American Economic Association. February 01, 2012. Web. February 07, 2017.
We find little empirical support for two of the main work-enhancing mechanisms that have been hypothesized for housing vouchers, namely significant improvements in neighborhoods or residential stability. Voucher receipt does seem to change the timing of moves, as families on the voucher program wait list seem to defer moving until they are offered a voucher, but does not have much effect on the total number of moves. Moreover, vouchers appear to have no significant impact on a family's neighborhood environment. Depending on how important the voucher program's restrictions on housing con- sumption are for labor supply, our findings could potentially also be relevant for understanding labor supply responses to other social programs as well. Since most CHAC voucher applicants have baseline incomes far below the phase-out range, and so will remain income-eligible for quite some time, our estimates presumably capture how people respond to perceived permanent changes in their budget con- straints. A simple calibration exercise assuming a CES utility function suggests that our reduced-form estimates are consistent with an income elasticity of -0.09 and a compensated wage elasticity of 0.15. An alternative way to think about the magnitude of our estimates is within the context of what Okun (1975) called the "leaky bucket" that society uses to transfer resources to the poor. How big is the leak? Setting aside for the moment program administration costs and deadweight losses associated with raising tax revenues, there is a difference in the voucher cost to the government ($8,400) and the vouch- er's equivalent variation ($6,860) that is the inevitable consequence of the voucher program's goal of promoting housing consumption. But vouchers also have the unintended consequence of reducing annual earnings by around $1,316 among pro- gram participants, around 19 percent of the value of the subsidy to voucher recipi- ents. Using the standard forjudging the size of work disincentive effects suggested by Blank (1997), eliminating the housing voucher program altogether would sub- stantially increase the degree of material deprivation among poor families despite the fact that they would work and earn more
Champion Briefs 256 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Critical Turn: Government funded housing programs reinforce neoliberal ideas of gentrification and corporate redevelopment control.
Hanlon, James. "Success By Design: HOPE VI, New Urbanism, And The Neoliberal Transformation Of Public Housing In The." Environment and Planning. April 18, 2009. Web. February 07, 2017.
Next, insofar as rebuilding mixed-income communities entails replacing public housing with privately owned and privately financed housing, HOPE VI is a rather unabashed exercise öakin to neoliberally inflected forms of gentrification and central business district redevelopmentöin revalorizing previously `undervalued' urban space (see Hackworth, 2007). This expression of urban neoliberalism, however, is premised upon three deeply flawed conceptualizations of poverty (see Gilbert, 1997; Katz, 1989; O'Connor, 2001). First, its focus on `deconcentrating' low-income households is informed by `culture of poverty' and `underclass' discourses that essentialize the spaces and identities they associate with poverty. Second, stringent readmission standards for public housing tenants wishing to gain access to new HOPE VI sites hinge upon a longstanding and problematic distinction between the `deserving' and `undeserving' poor. And, third, measuring success in terms of improvements in socioeconomic indicators reduces poverty to a simple matter of quantification, which obscures both the lived experience of poverty and the structural factors that contribute to its persistence. There is, of course, much that could be unpacked here, but the point I wish to make in noting these misguided premises is that the intellectual foundations of neoliberal urban policies are often profoundly fragile. Examining the enactment of such policies in relation their underlying assumptions therefore offers fruitful avenues for further critical research.
Champion Briefs 257 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers help people leave bad neighborhoods: Housing Voucher recipients are often forced to revert back to their old neighborhoods due to insufficient childcare facilities nearby these areas.
Rogers, Christy. "Racial Discipline And Neoliberal Governance In Housing Policy." The Ohio State University. February 10, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
MTO, which assigned unrestricted housing vouchers to public housing clients, did not take race or gender explicitly into account in program design (remember, it is raceneutral), despite the fact that most public housing tenants today are poor, underemployed, young women of color with children (Thompson 2006). MTO showed some improvements in movers‘ mental and physical health, thanks to the ability to leave highcrime neighborhoods, but showed little improvements in educational or economic outcomes. However, it was not until researchers did qualitative interviews that it became clear that the lack of improved access to jobs was connected to gender and race, and the processes by which gender and race marginalize and block access to other opportunities outside of labor opportunities. 117 The qualitative research with MTO participants revealed that a lack of affordable child care was a key reason that women who participated in MTO could not take jobs or had to move back to their old neighborhoods (Orr et. al. 2003; Popkin 2004). In addition, the majority of the program clients (again, women) had multiple family responsibilities, such as caring for children and elderly parents; without cars, these caregivers could not continue to care for extended families without returning to their old neighborhoods (Boyd et. al. 2006).
Champion Briefs 258 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers Reduce crime: Housing vouchers forces recipients into more drug ridden neighborhoods increasing their likelihood to consume them.
Dickson-Gomez, Julia. "How Much Choice Is There In Housing Choice Vouchers? Neighborhood Risk And Free Market Rental Housin." Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. April 15, 2009. Web. February 07, 2017.
Results from this study, while qualitative and exploratory, suggest that vouchers do not in themselves greatly increase recipients' choice of neighborhood, and do not eliminate all barriers to accessing housing for drug users. There is a shortage of low-income rental housing even in cities with high concentrations of poverty like Hartford. Initial costs for renting an apartment averaged more than $1,000 for almost all apartment unit types, including efficiencies, greatly limiting accessibility to low-income drug users, the majority of whom earned less than $500 a month. While receipt of housing vouchers can improve housing accessibility in general, tenant based voucher programs do not pay for these initial costs. Criminal background and credit checks, common in most apartment applications, further limit drug users' housing accessibility, most of whom had histories of arrest and eviction. Not all landlords accept housing vouchers. All landlords interviewed recognized incentives and disincentives to accept housing subsidies. Disincentives included the apartment inspections and increased paperwork associated with housing voucher programs and negative beliefs regarding Section 8 recipients, i.e. that they are drug using, problem tenants who do not work. Incentives included a guaranteed portion of the rent each month. These incentives outweighed disincentives to accepting housing subsidies in low income neighborhoods with high concentrations of rental property, and violent and drug related crime. Indeed, landlords who accepted housing vouchers were more likely to have units in low income neighborhoods with higher concentrations of rental property. Given the hassles associated with Section 8 and other housing subsidies, prejudices against Section 8 recipients, and a lack of any real incentives or sanctions associated with accepting or not accepting Section 8, landlords who can rent to high income, employed individuals with good credit, will do so. Forty-five percent of geocoded rental units were concentrated in neighborhoods with high drug and assault arrest rates. Participants reported that living in such neighborhoods made decreasing or abstaining from drug use nearly impossible. Their descriptions also shed light on the processes that may explain the observed relationship between neighborhood disorder and
Champion Briefs 259 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
Dickson-Gomez, Julia. "How Much Choice Is There In Housing Choice Vouchers? Neighborhood Risk And Free Market Rental Housin." Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. April 15, 2009. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 260 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Vouchers reduce crime: Due to landlords refusal to rent to many users recipients of housing vouchers are often unable to find neighborhoods with low crime rates.
Dickson-Gomez, Julia. "How Much Choice Is There In Housing Choice Vouchers? Neighborhood Risk And Free Market Rental Housin." Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. April 15, 2009. Web. February 07, 2017.
Results from this study suggest that supportive and subsidized housing are still likely to be located in neighborhoods with high social disorder, and that neighborhood characteristics, particularly the visibility of drug sales, negatively impact the mental health of both housed and homeless participants. HUD could provide additional incentives to landlords to accept housing subsidies, for example providing tax incentives, to increase the attractiveness of accepting housing subsidies and reduce the tendency for subsidized and supportive housing recipients to be concentrated in the most distressed neighborhoods. Supportive housing in particular, should consider neighborhood drug and violent crime in locating their clients as high crime environments may reduce the benefits associated with providing stable housing and appropriate support services. Ultimately, however, interventions should target neighborhood-level risk factors. Potential approaches could include police and community partnerships to reduce neighborhood violence and the visibility of drug sales, or efforts to improve neighborhood cohesion and sense of efficacy to confront neighborhood problems. All participants in this study, although they were active drug users, wished to live in safe neighborhoods where they were not confronted daily with drug dealers and violence. It is time for public health researchers to both study the impact of the physical environment of cities on residents' health and develop effective interventions to address these.
Champion Briefs 261 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Housing Vouchers Help the economy: Housing Justice increases overall rents – That increases the wealth disparity gap making affordable housing impossible.
Capps , Kriston. "How Fair Housing Will Turn Liberal Cities Conservative." CityLab. July 16, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
What follows are some sketches to show how justice in housing could erode the Democratic advantage in cities, a prospect that should give pause to partisans on both sides. Cities are growing richer—and that wealth isn’t trickling down “Across the 50 largest cities, households in the 95th percentile of income earned 11.6 times as much as households at the 20th percentile,” reads a Brookings Institution report on cities and inequality from March. Their report finds a larger inequality gap in cities than in the nation overall. In 12 of the 50 largest cities, the rich (households in the 95th percentile for income) grew a great deal richer between 2012 and 2013. In 11 of those 50 cities, poorer households (20th percentile) made big gains over the same stretch. But there was very little overlap: Only in Jacksonville, Florida, and Houston, Texas, did both rich and poor households make gains. And in most cities (31 of 50), lower-income households were worse off in 2013 than they were in 2007. (Brookings Institution) Rents are rising, but you knew that already. Soaring rents plus soaring incomes at the top in growing cities means a larger and larger disparity gap for affordable housing to bridge. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, we’re talking about building low-income housing in affluent neighborhoods that are growing richer and richer.
Champion Briefs 262 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Helps Economy Affordable housing is an un necessarily vague term: Policies require specific economic information to be sucessful.
No Author. "The Cost Of Affordable Housing." Citizens Budget Commission. December 15, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
A number of elected officials and housing advocates have criticized aspects of the Mayor’s Housing New York Plan as insufficiently focused on creating housing units for the lowest income households. They argue that the Plan’s definition of “affordable” housing is too broad and that developers should be required to provide more affordable units in exchange for the zoning and/or tax benefits to be conferred. In order to assess these concerns it is necessary to understand the economics of housing construction in New York City: How much does it cost to build residential units and what level of rent is needed to generate sufficient revenue to cover those costs? If certain tenants cannot afford the necessary rents, then other tenants must have their rent set high enough and/or there must be government subsidies to cover the shortfall. But there is a limit to how high rents can be set and still attract tenants, and there is a limit to how much city government can afford to provide in construction or rent subsidies.
Champion Briefs 263 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Housing Vouchers Improve Saftey: Current housing projects are too old to provide effective housing – compromises safety.
Bratt , Rachel. "The Status Of Nonprofit-Owned Affordable Housing: Short-Term Successes And Long-Term Challenges." JAPA. February 10, 1998. Web. February 07, 2017.
Our field work has demonstrated that nonprofit sponsors face serious challenges inherent in their management operations. Often the housing stock is old and rehabilitation may not have been done to the extent needed. Problems that are not fully addressed at the outset of a development’s life do not simply go away. Instead, they get worse and create ongoing management problems. Management is even more difficult owing to the type of housing found in many inner-city locations: relatively small-scale buildings that have been “bundled into a single development. In addition, managers must mitigate the effects of the neighborhood on a development; and they must do business with, and provide services to a poor clientele that may be facing a range of personal problems. The enormous challenges facing nonprofits have resulted in two distinct images of their management record. On the one hand, the current status of many developments in this sample appears, at least on the surface, to be sound. These developments are providing good quality housing, and the day-to-day management of the properties is competent. Rents are being collected, bills are being paid, and maintenance and repairs are generally proceeding smoothly. On the other hand, it is clear that the Achilles heel of the nonprofit housing sector is the financial condition of the developments. Although many developments appear to be holding things together, serious danger signs are present.
Champion Briefs 264 AFF: Federal Housing Vouchers Plan March/April 2017
A2 Reduces rent burdens: Affordable housing does not reduce rent burdens – Most impoverished still pay over 50% of income on rent.
Cheney, Brendan. "De Blasio Housing Plan Shapes Up As Historic-scale 'trade-off'." Politico. July 27, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
The city pays some of the construction costs, which decreases debt costs for the building. But the lower the rent is for the apartment (which can be rented to household with less income) the smaller share of actual costs the rents cover which means the city needs to increase subsidies. In New York City 379,000 of the poorest households were severely rent burdened in 2014, paying more than 50 percent of their rent, according to Housing and Vacancy Survey data compiled by the Citizens Budget Commission. The de Blasio housing plan provides 40,000 apartments to this income group.
Champion Briefs 265 Champion Briefs March/April 2017 Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Evidence for the Negative NEG: Universal Basic Income CP March/April 2017
Universal Basic Income CP
The Universal Base Income (UBI) counter plan has a lot of literature written on it for both sides. The Universal base income is the idea that the government should replace all welfare systems with a lump sum (generally 10,000) given to every citizen. The argument follows that it is cheaper then welfare systems in place currently. This also allows the money to be spent on whatever the recipient wants to. The downside to this is that some money goes to those that might not necessarily need it and that people may misspend it.
This argument would suggest that people can use the UBI to pay for housing and thus homelessness is solved without necessarily providing a right to housing. Net benefits can include anything the aff proposes (as UBI solves homelessness) as well as things like innovation, economic advantages (reduced welfare costs), and the many other things the money could be spent on. The competition with this DA can be phrased in terms of a tradeoff (hence why it would go great with a tradeoff DA) or textual competition.
This argument seems to resolve a lot of utilitarian based affirmative cases and has a pretty easy route to competitiveness. This argument is also great because it can be super short
(only needing 1 or 2 cards). There is already a lot of evidence left on this topic from the
January/February 2015 topic; Resolved: A Just Government Ought to Require Employers to Pay a Living Wage. There is a lot of evidence left over from this topic because it was a common counter plan then too.
Champion Briefs 267 NEG: Universal Basic Income CP March/April 2017
UBI offers the ability to reduce types of welfare and allow everyone a base line of funding.
Mathews , Dylan. "Giving Everyone A Basic Income Would Work For The Same Reasons Social Security Does." Vox. July 30, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
Basic income advocate Allan Sheahan proposed a $10,000 per adult, $2,000 per child basic income back in 2006 and laid out specifically what he thought it would cost, and how to pay for it. The cost comes to around $1.9 trillion a year. That's over 10 percent of GDP, and would constitute a rather massive expansion of government. He proposes paying for it by eliminating basically every tax deduction in the book — including the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable deduction, the standard deduction and personal exemption the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the child tax credit — going back to 1994's tax rates, subjecting all wages to payroll taxes, and a bunch of other tax increases. This is an extremely ambitious proposal; that much is beyond dispute. But he's hardly the only person arguing for a 10 percent of GDP expansion of the welfare state. Lane Kenworthy, an sociologist at the University of Arizona, released an outstanding book last year, Social Democratic America, laying out an expansion of the welfare state exactly that big, which he argued would be necessary for the US to become a true, European-style social democracy; I interviewed him about the details here. If you (like me) accept that basic argument, that a government capable of meeting human needs must be significantly larger than the one the US has now, then it's worth considering how best to structure that expansion. I think a basic income makes as much sense as any other idea for how to do it. Conservative welfare critic/scientific racist Charles Murray wrote a book in 2006, In Our Hands, laying out what a conservative/libertarian basic income would look like. His plan has no child allowance and gives $10,000 a year to everyone over 21, but unlike Sheahan, he wants to keep the government the same size or smaller. It has a 20 percent phaseout rate, making it a negative income tax, formally speaking. He accomplishes this by gutting much of the rest of the welfare state. He'd get rid of Social Security, disability insurance, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, S-CHIP, veterans' health care, school lunches, housing assistance, food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit and child tax credit (this he and Sheahan have in common), Pell Grants, and Head Start, among many many other programs. That doesn't quite pay for it, so he throws in some other budget cuts too. The result is still more expensive than the current set-up, but he accepts that, given that basic income's costs will grow more slowly than a lot of the welfare state, especially medical benefits.
Champion Briefs 268 NEG: Universal Basic Income CP March/April 2017
Universal income could benefit a variety of things including homelessness.
Porter, Eduardo. "A Universal Basic Income Is A Poor Tool To Fight Poverty." New York Times. May 31, 2016. Web. February 06, 2017.
Why doesn’t the government just give everybody money? Figure out a reasonable amount — the official poverty line amounts to about $25,000 for a family of four; a full-time job at $15 an hour would provide about $30,000 a year — and hand every adult a monthly check. The minimum- wage worker stretching to make it to payday, the single mother balancing child care and a job — everybody would get the same thing. Poverty would be over, at a stroke. Being universal — that is, for the homeless and the masters of the universe alike — the program would be free of the cumbersome assessments required to determine eligibility. It would also escape the stigma typically attached to programs for the poor. And it would be politically secure. Programs for the poor are often maligned as poor programs. Indeed, defunding antipoverty programs rarely carries political consequences because the poor rarely vote. It’s another story entirely when everybody benefits. The idea of universal basic income sounds extravagant, right? Well, the Finns and even the Swiss are thinking about it. On Sunday, Swiss citizens will vote in a referendum on whether to hand out 30,000 francs a year — just over $30,000 — to every citizen, regardless of wealth, work status or whatever.
Champion Briefs 269 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
Economic Impacts DA
This argument is very self-explanatory: housing costs a lot of money and that leads to a bad impact. This can be a contention on a standard utilitarianism NC or constructed as a DA.
This argument will turn a lot of the affirmative arguments about how housing the homeless is cheaper. The main problem with this argument is that the majority of pop literature talks about how housing the homeless is actually cheaper than allowing homelessness. This is because there are residual costs such as medical care and emergency services that the public still ends up paying for.
The most effective way to make this argument work would be to say that this would be a large one-time expense that the US can’t afford currently or that the money would need to come from different funding pools which causes a tradeoff. When constructing arguments for this case make sure to look through the trade-off section as well as for reasons as to why the funding would compete with each other. Once you get the evidence that housing would cost a lot of money all you have to do is find evidence saying the US is at a place where it has to make hard decisions in regards to the money it spends. The impact story is the easy part of this argument as there are countless reasons why economic downturn is bad (including more homelessness which would turn the case).
Champion Briefs 270 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
A2 Econ DA: The cost of housing the 600K homeless people could be covered under the amount that Wall Street Executives get in bonuses every year.
McDonald, Andy. "Wall Street Got $26.7 Billion In Bonuses Last Year. That’s Enough To Feed Every Hungry American." Huffington Post. April 04, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development found that on a single given night in January 2013, a little more than 600,000 people were homeless. Of those people, 394,698 were staying in shelters, while 215,344 were staying in unsheltered locations. A 2009 study titled, “Where We Sleep: The Costs of Housing and Homelessness in Los Angeles,” found that a homeless person living on the street actually ends up costing taxpayers $2,897 a month, which accounts for things like hospital visits, health care and police costs. The study also found that it would only cost $605 a month, or $7,260 a year, to host that same homeless person in supportive housing. At that price, housing 600,000-plus homeless people in the U.S. would cost roughly $4.4 billion for a year, money that studies have suggested would ultimately end up being recouped in future savings. Even assuming that costs have inflated since 2009, with a $26.7 billion Wall Street bonus, we could house every homeless person in America for several years, and still net an overall savings.
Champion Briefs 271 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
A2 Econ DA: Caring for the homeless costs about 35,000 without housing them.
Moorhead , Molly. "HUD Secretary Says A Homeless Person Costs Taxpayers $40,000 A Year." Politifact. March 12, 2012. Web. February 06, 2017. < http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person- costs-taxpayers/>.
Plenty of other studies have attempted to determine the cost of homelessness, although with different variables such as city, age, addiction history, employment history and childhood background. For example, the Economic Roundtable in Los Angeles looked at the costs of homelessness there and reached similar conclusions. The 2009 study "Where We Sleep: The Costs of Housing and Homelessness in Los Angeles," which followed 10,193 homeless individuals, found that the typical public cost for services for residents in supportive housing was $605 a month. For the homeless the cost was $2,897. The rate of $2,897 per month totals about $35,000 a year. "This remarkable finding demonstrates that practical, tangible public benefits result from providing supportive housing for vulnerable homeless individuals," the researchers wrote. For guidance on this story, we talked to Philip Mangano, the former homelessness policy czar under President George W. Bush. Mangano helped expand housing-first programs -- with federal dollars behind them -- into cities around the country. As the programs became established, Mangano said he was able to compile data from 65 cities looking at all services affected by homelessness. Hospitals, police and courts top the list. Chronically homeless people are regular visitors to emergency rooms, and each visit results in a hefty bill. They also frequently use mental health and addiction treatment services. They tend to rack up lots of arrests, leading to costly jail stays and use of court time. "They randomly ricochet through very expensive services, Mangano said. Mangano even looked at the impact on libraries, finding that many of them had to hire extra security to handle homeless loiterers. Using data from the 65 cities -- of all different sizes and demographics -- the cost of keeping people on the street added up to between $35,000 and $150,000 per person per year, Mangano said. Conversely, after the housing-first programs had been established, Mangano said, he looked at the cost of keeping formerly homeless people housed. That range: $13,000 to $25,000 per person per year. "We learned that you could either sustain people in homelessness for $35,000 to $150,000 a year, or you could literally end their homelessness for $13,000 to $25,000 a year," he said. Why does it work? Rosen said housing people eliminates risk factors related to sleeping on the street, such as exposure to harsh temperatures and unhealthy drug habits that go untreated.Supportive housing, by contrast, provides a healthy environment. "Not only do you have support services on site, we build beautiful buildings and beautiful apartments," she said. "You bring somebody inside, and you help restore their dignity. The support services that we offer help folks decrease their reliance on drugs. If they have mental health issues, they see a psychiatrist. And oftentimes their behavior is changed."
Champion Briefs 272 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
Housing cost isn’t the only problem it has to be a good location because location controls the link to transportation cost.
Badger, Emily. "When Cheap Housing Isn’t Really A Good Deal." Washington Post. March 26, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
"The cost of living is going up faster than income, and these are the two biggest parts of it, housing and transportation costs," says Scott Bernstein, CNT's president. "We should be looking for ways to do what we can about either or both of those ahead of time, as a sort of insurance policy." That way when, for instance, the price of gas spikes, people who thought they'd bought cheap suburban homes won't be caught off guard by the high cost of traveling there every day. There are lot of ways that this idea — redefining affordability to include transportation — could be embedded into government policies and household decision-making. HUD and DOT have started to offer a similar tool, built with the help of CNT. If banks (and government agencies that back mortgages) embraced the idea of "location-efficient mortgages," that could help ensure that fewer families wind up in homes with hidden costs they can't afford. Or it may help a would-be homeowner qualify for a larger mortgage in an "efficient location" where he or she won't own a car.
Champion Briefs 273 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
After transportation and location costs are considered housing is likely not as reasonably priced.
Badger, Emily. "When Cheap Housing Isn’t Really A Good Deal." Washington Post. March 26, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
It would also make a lot of sense for governments to invest in affordable or public housing in places where transportation costs will also be low. Put affordable housing far from transit, jobs and grocery stores, in other words, and it may not really be affordable after all. Likewise, housing counselors and Realtors could encourage people to think about these transportation costs, too. Right now, sites like Zillow or Redfin don't say much about transportation at all. "I measured this once," Bernstein says. "You get an average of four pages of extraordinary detail on the cost of housing out of one of these sites, and you're likely to get one phrase like 'transportation nearby.'" If we changed how we thought about what's affordable in this way, that could potentially change a lot of other things, like where developers build and even where Americans chose to live. "If you think about it over the long run, there will be winners and losers in a shifting market like this," Bernstein says. "If you put the information out and people see that inefficient locations come with the hidden extra of the cost of transportation, people who’ve been making money selling housing in those places won’t do as well. So there will be some pushback."
Champion Briefs 274 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
Transportation cost needs to be considered in tandem with housing cost.
Badger, Emily. "When Cheap Housing Isn’t Really A Good Deal." Washington Post. March 26, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
Consider housing and transportation costs in tandem, and a $1,000-a-month downtown apartment for example may feel cheaper if it means you don't have to lease a $300-a-month car. Likewise, the relatively cheap mortgage on a house in the outer-ring suburbs may entail a lot of hidden transportation costs if you have to drive everywhere.This doesn't necessarily mean that the downtown apartment is always a better deal. The more complex calculation of what "affordability" really means varies in every community in the country.
Champion Briefs 275 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
Housing homeless trades off about $16,000.
Moorhead , Molly. "HUD Secretary Says A Homeless Person Costs Taxpayers $40,000 A Year." Politifact. March 12, 2012. Web. February 06, 2017. < http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person- costs-taxpayers/>.
Donovan’s office pointed to a study by University of Pennsylvania researcher Dennis Culhane titled "Public Service Reductions Associated with Placement of Homeless Persons with Severe Mental Illness in Supportive Housing." Culhane analyzed the costs of 4,679 mentally ill homeless people in New York City who were placed in supportive housing that also provided social services. Those costs were compared to data on people who relied on public shelters, public and private hospitals and correctional facilities. Culhane found that "persons placed in supportive housing experience marked reductions in shelter use, hospitalizations, length of stay per hospitalization and time incarcerated. Before placement, homeless people with severe mental illness used about $40,451 per person per year in services (1999 dollars). Placement was associated with a reduction in services use of $16,281 per housing unit per year." This study is a decade old (the dollar figures are 13 years old), and it examined a subgroup of homeless people - - those with severe mental disabilities -- who need more services and thus have a higher cost of care. Donovan’s statement didn’t make that distinction; he just said ‘a homeless person.’
Champion Briefs 276 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
A2 Spending DA: It is all about budget allocation. There is room for an assurance for affordable housing.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate 9:2 , 223-246. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
But given that government budgetary outlays must be far higher than current levels if the National Housing Goal is to become a reality, is the money there? That, I submit, is not a fiscal question but a political one. We do not have any wholly reliable estimates of what realizing a right to decent, affordable housing would cost, but a recent approach can offer an order-of- magnitude estimate. For example, the detailed 10-year program put forth by the Institute for Policy Studies’ Working Group on Housing (1989) has a first-year price tag of between $29 and $88 billion (in 1989 dollars), depending on what mixture of its differently priced elements is chosen; over its life, required outlays are reduced annually. While the figure sounds high, such expenditures represent a tiny percentage of the current federal budget. Funding B-2 bombers (‘‘that notorious lemon’’ [Lewis 1995] unrequested by the Pentagon), at $1.4 billion each, at a time when the possibility of large-scale wars is at its lowest in the century, is but one illustration of politicized budgetary choices that reveal no shortage of financial resources. The above figure appears to be in line with the amount of subsidy the government grants under the mortgage interest deduction. According to U.S. Congress (1997) Joint Committee on Taxation estimates, the mortgage interest deduction alone will amount to $232.6 billion over the period between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. For the same five-year period, the deduction of property taxes on owner-occupied residences is estimated to cost $89.9 billion, and exclusion of capital gains on the sale of principal residences is estimated at $29.6 billion. In sum, it’s not that we don’t have the money to fund a right to housing; rather, it’s how we choose to spend it.
Champion Briefs 277 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
Obama promised to house all homeless veterans, the program proved to be too expensive and they weren't able to achieve it.
El Nasser, Haya. "Ending Veteran Homelessness By Year’s End May Come At A Cost." Al Jazeera. March 17, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
The race to house every homeless veteran by the end of 2015 is raising concern among homeless advocates that meeting the deadline is becoming more important than doing it right. Since Barack Obama’s administration set the ambitious goal of getting the estimated more than 50,000 homeless veterans in the U.S. off the streets, the rush to meet the challenge is leaving some wondering if it’s happening at the expense of homeless nonmilitary families and children. At the same time, even homeless veterans say they’re being pushed into shelters and housing units that are bug-infested and too expensive for them, even with the help of HUD-VASH (Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) vouchers. The two agencies doled out $13.5 million in rental housing assistance for 1,984 homeless vets this fiscal year and $62 million to assist more than 9,000 the previous year.
Champion Briefs 278 NEG: Economic Impacts DA March/April 2017
A2 Econ Impacts: Our struggle with budget deficits is all the more reason to ensure a right to housing.
Tars, Eric. "Housing As A Human Right." National Low Income Housing Coalition. February 10, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
FORECAST Our country’s current struggle with budget deficits is not a reason to defer actions to improve Americans’ access to adequate housing. Rather, it is precisely in this time of ongoing economic hardship that the need to do so is most acute, and a rightsbased approach to budgeting decisions would help generate the will to protect people’s basic human dignity first, rather than relegating it to the status of an optional policy. In 2016, housing advocates will be building on the gains from international recognition of housing and homeless as a human rights violation to promote housing policy goals from the federal to local levels.
Champion Briefs 279 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Politics DA
There are two Politics Disadvantages in this file. The first offers an extremely specific topic disadvantage that will turn the case. The second is tangentially related to the topic, like most politics disadvantages, and provides a “big stick” scenario to weigh against the affirmative.
For the first disadvantage, the idea is that the Affirmative is a bad idea because it forces conservative backlash against the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is essential to housing security. It provides the best timeframe on a potential housing crisis, meaning that you not only turn case, but likely access the impacts of poverty, and homelessness faster. It is important to note that this disadvantage does not really require you to operate in a new ethical framework, unless the affirmative is indicting consequentialism from the very beginning. Regardless, the best strategy is to win some form of case defense to make the disadvantage the only offense, as it won’t really have a large external impact.
For the second disadvantage, the scenario is that Trump is attempting to fulfill campaign promises, and denying a rally of support is essential to preventing that. This might require you to win a bit of impact framing against the affirmative to side line things like poverty in exchange focus on potential economic collapse. Although this disadvantage has some degree of a “turns case” argument that can be made, it is mainly a large external impact that can be paired with case defense to make an easy ballot on outweighing.
In conclusion, this is an argument that can have a lot of offensive potential, but needs to be paired with case arguments to be effective, and in some case outright sidelining of
Affirmative impacts
Champion Briefs 280 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Uniqueness: Carson’s nomination to the Department of Housing and Urban Development is the lesser of two evils – He’s holding back calls to large budget cuts.
Ramírez, Kelsey. "Housing Industry Rallies Around Ben Carson For HUD Secretary." Housing Wire. January 13, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
One expert, who worked at HUD for over 15 years, even explained that Carson brings unique experience to the position. “Something I think he’s uniquely qualified to understand is the connection between the environment people live in and their outcomes,” said Marion McFadden, Enterprise Community Partners vice president of public policy. “He’s dedicated his entire career to helping people, so while that’s not a career in housing policy, there’s every reason to believe he really will be confirmed,” McFadden said in an interview with HousingWire. “There’s no magic formula for what makes a great HUD secretary.” While the industry is rallying in their support of Carson, McFadden explained one of the challenges Carson will face once in the position of HUD secretary. “He talked a little bit about being willing to cut the budget, and the reality is that there is a tremendous need among Americans for assistance from programs like HUD programs,” she said. She explained that while Carson’s views align with the president-elect right now when it comes to budget cutting, she said he may soon learn how much funding really is needed at HUD. “There’s not enough money already,” she said. “The challenge for him will be how he squares that with his desire to support the president’s call for cutting the budget.”
Champion Briefs 281 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Uniqueness: Carson’s nomination to the Department of Housing and Urban Development is the lesser of two evils – He’s holding back calls to large budget cuts.
Ramírez, Kelsey. "Housing Industry Rallies Around Ben Carson For HUD Secretary." Housing Wire. January 13, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
One expert, who worked at HUD for over 15 years, even explained that Carson brings unique experience to the position. “Something I think he’s uniquely qualified to understand is the connection between the environment people live in and their outcomes,” said Marion McFadden, Enterprise Community Partners vice president of public policy. “He’s dedicated his entire career to helping people, so while that’s not a career in housing policy, there’s every reason to believe he really will be confirmed,” McFadden said in an interview with HousingWire. “There’s no magic formula for what makes a great HUD secretary.” While the industry is rallying in their support of Carson, McFadden explained one of the challenges Carson will face once in the position of HUD secretary. “He talked a little bit about being willing to cut the budget, and the reality is that there is a tremendous need among Americans for assistance from programs like HUD programs,” she said. She explained that while Carson’s views align with the president-elect right now when it comes to budget cutting, she said he may soon learn how much funding really is needed at HUD. “There’s not enough money already,” she said. “The challenge for him will be how he squares that with his desire to support the president’s call for cutting the budget.”
Champion Briefs 282 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Link: Housing reform is contentious – There is simply too much at stake not to start fights, and force Trump to intervene.
Mantell, Ruth. "Why Republicans Won’t Enact Housing-finance Reform." MarketWatch. November 04, 2014. Web. February 07, 2017.
An unresolved issue from the financial meltdown is what to do about federally controlled mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are big-deal companies: Together they back about half of new U.S. mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, which closely monitors industry trends. But many Republican lawmakers may prefer to avoid contentious and complex issues such as housing-finance reform, analysts said. The housing market touches all voters, whether they are owners or renters, and with such high stakes, no one wants to be seen as getting a bilwhen just one party leads both congressional chambers there’s less room to point fingers when laws prove unpopularl wrong. After all,. And the pressure is on as Republicans look toward the presidential race in two years. Meanwhile, from a logistical point of view, a GOP that takes up housing reform will be hard pressed to find a wide-enough window for such a thorny issue.
Champion Briefs 283 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Internal Link: Forcing Trump to exercise political muscle is unwise – It results in even more conservative policies than before.
Drucker, David. "Trump Has Reams Of Political Capital, Despite His Unpopularity." Washington Examiner. January 18, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Trump has conducted his transition differently. He held a series of campaign-style rallies, has fought with political opponents, and continued to take shots at President Obama, Democrats in Congress, and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat he defeated last November. It's no wonder, then, that the president-elect earned low marks on the eve of his inauguration. That compares to Obama's 75 percent approval rating during a similar period eight years ago; George W. Bush's 65 percent in 2001, despite the Supreme Court's intervention in that election; and Bill Clinton's 67 percent in 1992. Even with such approval ratings to begin their presidencies, each of those presidents eventually ran into political trouble. President Ronald Reagan, who won in a true landslide in 1980, found himself unpopular two years later, costing the GOP 28 House seats in the 1982 midterm elections. But Trump's political muscle with the majorities that run Congress could result in an unusually long honeymoon, despite beginning his term such a broadly unpopular national figure. "If you take a look at candidate Trump in the primary and the general, he set a pretty broad aperture for things that he wants to get done," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said. "I think there's a lot of room for those of us who believe that the American people want right-of-center results — but they want results."
Champion Briefs 284 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Impact: HUD budget cuts massively increase homelessness, racial discrimination, and ability to resolve current homelessness – That turns case.
Poteat, Edward. "What Does The Upcoming Presidential Election Mean For HUD?" Planetizen: The independent resource for people passionate about planning and related fields. October 29, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
As an affordable housing professional and urban planner, I think a lot about the future of HUD. Recently, I've been worrying about the future of HUD under a Republican president. While HUD has thrived under Democratic presidents, Republican presidents have done their best to undermine the agency. The Lyndon Johnson administration created the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)to address the persistent disparities in urban neighborhoods that resulted in the urban race riots of the 1960s. Significant housing policies, such as FHA homeownership insurance and the creation of public housing, had already been implemented under the previous democratic administrations of Roosevelt and Truman. The creation of HUD by President Johnson organized the federal government's response to inadequate housing amongst the poor and also provided significant funding for the creation of affordable housing by the private sector. Between 1941 and 1973, HUD created more than 1 million units of affordable housing, either through public housing or privately owned, federally subsidized housing. HUD also began to effectively combat racist housing policy around the country. All of this changed in 1973 under the Nixon Administration. The Republican administrations of Nixon, Ford, and Reagan significantly reduced the scope of HUD. Nixon implemented a moratorium on all new affordable housing production programs in 1974 and, the Reagan Administration virtually abolished funding for new affordable housing. Under Reagan, HUD became little more than a caretaker of its existing housing and an administrator of rental subsidy programs such as Section 8. Although President Clinton and then HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo (now Governor of New York) tried to make HUD more efficient, the administration of George W. Bush produced continued threats to HUD's budget. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney even threatened to dismantle the Cabinet-level agency. So what does all this mean for us in 2016? Fundamentally, HUD has three basic missions: 1) provide affordable housing, 2) eliminate discrimination in housing, and 3) advocate for and create holistic community development programs for America's urban areas. All three missions will be under assault in a Republican administration. The current Republican Congress has proposed significant cuts to the 2015 HUD budget. If the proposed cuts to the budget were implemented, 100,000 American families would be at risk of homelessness due to the elimination of rental subsidy vouchers for these families, and funding for capital improvements to existing affordable housing or the creation of new affordable housing would be cut between 20 to 25 percent.
Champion Briefs 285 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Uniqueness: Trump faces Congressional opposition on mass deportation and the wall – he won’t accomplish the full agenda without cooperation.
Colvin , Geoff. "Will Donald Trump Start Mass Deportations And A Wall?" Fortune. November 10, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
Immigration. Building the border wall he has repeatedly promised would be so expensive that he could not do it without congressional authorization. Even with an appropriation, which would face enormous opposition, the environmental requirements and legal challenges from ranchers and others could take years to resolve. Trump has also promised to start deporting illegal immigrants as soon as he takes office and to triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, but this too would be expensive and would require appropriations. Most of the 11 million illegal immigrants have been here over five years, so they’re entitled to a hearing before action is taken. The system for conducting those hearings isn’t nearly ready to handle millions of immigrants suddenly flooding it. So Trump won’t be able to deliver on his immigration promise without lots of congressional cooperation. But he can do plenty else. He can immediately end President Obama’s program that protects illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, which he has promised to do. He can also instruct ICE to change its priorities. Obama told ICE to focus on deporting dangerous illegal immigrants and to go easy on families, which reduced total deportations; Trump could immediately issue his own priorities.
Champion Briefs 286 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Link: Housing reforms empirically create conservative backlash – It gives trump the constituent pressure to congress he needs.
Khachaturian , Rafael. "Fair Housing Needs More Than Heroes." Dissent Magazine. August 27, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
Twenty years later, after President Richard Nixon took office, his housing secretary George Romney announced a plan to deconcentrate public housing. Instead of high-rises in the inner city, smaller projects would be built on scattered sites in the suburbs. The scattered-site housing program drew intense resistance, helping to fuel the “white backlash” that swept Nixon to a reelection landslide. Romney left office after the election, at which point Nixon called a halt to all construction of public housing. Today’s right wing seeks to replicate these past victories. Stanley Kurtz, author of a best-selling attack on President Obama titled Radical-in- Chief, charges that fair housing rules issued in early July by the federal government would “undo America’s system of local government” by “imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition.” He and other right-wing writers pair attacks on federal government coercion with an uncompromising defense of another coercive power: the power that local governments exert through exclusionary zoning rules. The threat these writers warn against is not just low-income housing, but any form of urban living. This, as political scientist Thomas Edsall points out, is a potent message that appeals not just to nativists, but to affluent, socially liberal homeowners as well. The idea that the single-family neighborhood must exclude all other forms of housing is deeply embedded in the American psyche; the most mundane-seeming zoning dispute can excite exclusionary passions like those seen in Show Me a Hero.
Champion Briefs 287 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Internal Link: Completion of Trump deportation pledge literally ushers repression and violence along with economic collapse.
Rosenfeld, Steven. "Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine: He’ll Create An American Police State Equal To Nazi Germany." Salon. September 03, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
Donald Trump’s pledge this week to speedily deport “anyone who has entered the United States illegally” would require the creation of a vast police state that harkens back to the early 20th century, with Nazi Germany’s roundups and deportations of millions of Jews and others deemed undesirable. “Under my administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country and back to the country from which they came,” Trump blared. “And you can call it deported if you want. The press doesn’t like that term. You can call it whatever the hell you want. They’re gone.” Trump’s plan starts with the immediate roundup and expulsion of “illegal immigrants who are arrested for any crime whatsoever,” but goes far beyond the notion that local police might stop a car whose rear headlight is out, demand visas and green cards, and in their absence throw that person into an American gulag that ends in a foreign airport. Trump has said that “62 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants” receive some welfare or food stamps, a “tremendous cost to our country” and “will be priorities for immediate removal.” That would create not just a climate of great fear, but in tandem with his pledge to push for a new national law withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities, it echoes 1930s Germany’s deliberate stripping of civil rights. Until Trump’s Arizona speech Wednesday, he had signaled that he still wanted to deport 11 million undocumented migrants — and also ensnare their estimated 5 million children born here and revoke their citizenship — but offered no details beyond saying he would find a “humane and efficient” way to do it. On Wednesday, he offered some numbers to indicate the size of the expanded federal police force needed, saying he would “triple the number of ICE deportation officers” and “hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents.” But a series of 2016 reports from a right- wing think tank, American Action Forum, which looked at the logistics behind Trump’s pledge to deport migrants in a two-year period reveals a far larger state police force and deportation machinery would be required. The closest historic analogy is not the arrest and deportation of 1.3 million Mexicans in the 1950s derisively known as “Operation Wetback,” nor the roundup and internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans in WWII, nor the arrest of thousands of accused Communists in the Palmer Raids after WWI. It is Nazi Germany, where the Gestapo, or the state police — along with the legal system and the courts, a transportation infrastructure, and transit and concentration camps — were used to arrest and deport millions of Jews and other “undesirables.” “We examined what it would take to execute Donald Trump’s promise to remove all undocumented immigrants in just two years,” American Action Forum reported. “We detailed current immigration enforcement operations and estimated exactly how large each component of the enforcement process would have to be in order to accomplish this task.” “We found that to remove all undocumented immigrants in two years, the federal government would need to
Champion Briefs 288 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Rosenfeld, Steven. "Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine: He’ll Create An American Police State Equal To Nazi Germany." Salon. September 03, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 289 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Rosenfeld, Steven. "Trump’s Mass Deportation Machine: He’ll Create An American Police State Equal To Nazi Germany." Salon. September 03, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 290 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Impact: Repression and economic collapse ushers in an incoherence that ensures global nuclear conflict – escalation is likely.
Metz , Steven. "Strategic Insights: Thinking About Catastrophe: The Army In A Nuclear Armed World." Strategic Studies Institute. December 14, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
These missions remain vitally important, but today there is an additional, less understood, element of the nuclear threat. As more states join the nuclear club, including some with brittle or unpredictable regimes, a conflict not involving the United States could escalate to the nuclear level or a government could lose control of nuclear weapons or see them used during a large scale civil war. A catastrophe of this sort would devastate the global economy and environment, destroy political stability across entire regions, and unleash an unprecedented humanitarian disaster. This means that American strategists and political leaders must expand the way they think about nuclear weapons. In addition to the traditional deterrence and efforts to control what are often called "loose nukes," the United States must now consider stabilization, relief, and reconstruction operations following a nuclear exchange, and large scale, protracted operations to deal with loose nukes after the collapse of a government or during a major internal conflict. The Army would play a leading role in operations of this sort. Imagine a brittle, corrupt, ineffective or repressive government facing mounting internal opposition including large-scale public protests and riots; intense criticism from social media; factionalism within the elite; escalating terrorism and internal violence; economic stagnation, inflation, and widespread unemployment; and military discontent. If history is a guide, the beleaguered regime would particularly fear its armed forces. To Americans, it might seem that the logical reaction would be to address the causes of discontent and undertake serious reform. However, brittle and repressive regimes can read history too. They know that reform can easily spiral out of the control and lead to the regime's demise. Many dictators who tried to placate intense opposition with reform ended up dead or in exile. There are other options that might seem appealing. Sometimes crackdowns and increased repression works. Another time tested response is distraction: by trumpeting an external threat, the regime inspires its opponents to "rally 'round the flag." Importantly, the armed forces, which are the most proximate threat to a beleaguered regime, will tend to shift their focus to the external threat rather than the shortcomings of its government. History is littered with examples of beleaguered regimes attempting strategic distraction. Sometimes the results were tragic—think the seizure of the Falkland Islands by the Argentinian military dictatorship in 1982—but not catastrophic. In a world of nuclear states, though, distracting the public, elites, and armed forces from internal problems by external assertiveness could lead neighboring states or adversaries to counter escalate, thus beginning a slide toward doomsday. After all, that is exactly how World War I began. In the modern era, though, doomsday might not mean four years of horrific trench warfare, but a nuclear strike or exchange by frightened states convinced that lashing out is their only chance of survival. Unfortunately, the more brittle a regime, the greater the chances it will attempt to distract
Champion Briefs 291 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Metz , Steven. "Strategic Insights: Thinking About Catastrophe: The Army In A Nuclear Armed World." Strategic Studies Institute. December 14, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 292 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Extra Uniqueness: Carson is defending HUD from large structural changes – Ensures minimal damage to the agency.
No Author. "The Latest: Housing Pick Grilled On Budget Cut Propsals." Associated Press. January 12, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Democratic senators are questioning how Ben Carson's promise to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in annual spending squares with overseeing a department that serves millions of the poorest Americans. Carson is President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for housing secretary. At Carson's confirmation hearing, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio says the call for a 10 percent budget cut for government agencies would send hundreds of thousands of families into a tailspin. Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey questioned Carson on whether he supports the concept of rental assistance. Carson assures him that rental assistance is "essential." Carson says his philosophy on entitlement programs is that it's cruel to remove them without providing an alternative.
Champion Briefs 293 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Extra Extensions: Housing is contentious and political backlash with a Trump presidency is assured.
Greenberg, Zoe. "Advocates Of Fair Housing Brace For A Tough Four Years." New York Times. January 27, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
“Most everybody would like to pretend that there’s not any problem with fair housing anymore: We passed the laws, there’s no segregation anymore, that was my grandfather’s problem, but we fixed it,” said John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University who has been called as an expert witness in many fair housing cases over the last two decades. He said that the political backlash against integration is so great that many administrations avoid any real action on it. “While some may say, ‘Oh, the sky is falling, because the Trump administration is so terrible,’ my view is that it will be terrible, like all the others,” Mr. Logan said, referring to previous administrations. The Obama administration made some strides, partly by releasing rules in 2015 that clarified how local communities must not only prevent discrimination, but also affirmatively further fair housing, an element of the original Fair Housing Act that has remained largely unfulfilled. Now, with Mr. Trump in the White House, the Fair Housing Justice Center and organizations like it are digging in on what they have always seen as a drawn-out campaign.
Champion Briefs 294 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Extension: Democrats defend Carson as the lesser of the Evils – He is committed to dealing minimal damage to HUD.
Link , Taylor. "Following Backlash From The Left, Elizabeth Warren Defends Her Vote For Ben Carson." Salon. January 26, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Facing this backlash, Warren took to Facebook to expound on her decision to support Carson, who many of her supporters have seen as an unsatisfactory choice to run public housing in this country. “Yes, I have serious, deep, profound concerns about Dr. Carson’s inexperience to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development,” Warren wrote in a public post. “Yes, I adamantly disagree with many of the outrageous things that Dr. Carson said during his presidential campaign. Yes, he is not the nominee I wanted,” she added. “But ‘the nominee I wanted’ is not the test.” Warren claimed she carefully vetted Carson during the confirmation process and that she ultimately determined that President Donald Trump’s alternative choice for HUD secretary could fall short on the promises Carson made in the hearings. “But at his hearing, he committed to track and report on conflicts of interest at the agency,” Warren wrote. “In his written responses to me, he made good, detailed promises, on everything from protecting anti- homelessness programs to enforcing fair housing laws. Promises that – if they’re honored – would help a lot of working families,” she added.
Champion Briefs 295 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Extension: Trump has Democrats stuck between Gov shutdown or a Wall – Trump will undoubtedly win that fight.
Marcos, Cristina. "What Congress Could Do In Trump’s First 100 Days." TheHill. January 11, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, a notion dismissed by the Mexican government. GOP leaders and Trump’s transition team have discussed using taxpayer dollars to begin work on the wall, and then forcing Mexico to pay back the money later. As first reported by Politico and CNN, Republicans could turn to a 2006 law that authorized construction of a more than 700-mile “physical barrier” on the border with Mexico. Since the law never expired, Trump and congressional Republicans could pick up where the Bush administration left off. Adding the funding to a must-pass spending bill would force Democrats to either accept building the wall or risk a government shutdown. Such a clash would serve as a test of both Democrats’ opposition strategy and Trump’s ability to keep a central campaign pledge in high-stakes negotiations.
Champion Briefs 296 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
AFF Extension A2 XO CP: Trump needs congressional approval to fund the wall even after his executive order.
MARSHALL , SERENA. "Why Executive Order May Not Be Enough For Trump To Build Border Wall." ABC News. January 26, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Trump signed an executive order to, as press secretary Sean Spicer explained during a briefing Wednesday, begin the building of a "large physical barrier" along the U.S.-Mexican border. Spicer re-emphasized that “yes, one way or another, as the president has said before, Mexico will pay for it,” though offering no specifics on how it would be funded in the meantime. For his part, Trump said in remarks at DHS Wednesday, "We are going to save lives on both sides of the border, and we also understand that a strong and healthy economy in Mexico is very good for the United States.” The president also told ABC News Wednesday in his first one-on- one television interview since being sworn in that U.S. taxpayer dollars would be used to start the construction of the wall after negotiations between the United States and Mexico begin "relatively soon." But still at issue is whether Trump’s executive authority is enough to move the proposed project forward. Here are some key questions to consider: Can He Get It Done? One of the first questions to ponder is whether he can legally build a wall? Yes, though most likely only if he can get Congress to pay for it. But Trump has decided to begin the process on his own, signing two executive orders Wednesday that would increase the number of border patrol enforcement officers and lay the groundwork for building his proposed wall along unspecified portions of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. To that end, the Trump administration and GOP leaders are invoking a 2006 law -- the Secure Fence Act -- that authorized about 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. The goal of that law, with support from Democrats like then- Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, was to keep pedestrians and vehicles from crossing. Then-President George W. Bush signed the measure after Congress approved it, and various kinds of fencing have since been constructed in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Why Does He Need Congress? President Trump has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to review its $41 billion annual budget and move funds within the organization to help fund the border wall effort. The House and Senate appropriations committees would have to approve any reallocation of funding internally. “The department [of Homeland Security] can move money around to some degree; small amounts within individual agencies have reprogramming limits set in place by specific reappropriation committees,” Kenneth Gold, director of the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, said. But because the wall is expected to cost billions of dollars, it's more than likely that the White House will need additional money, which means the administration will have to ask Congress for it. “The whole purpose of the appropriations clause of the Constitution is to place limits on what the president can do on his own,” Gold said. “Presidents cannot simply decide to obligate funds that Congress has not appropriated money for.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., today said Congress will approve funding for the wall in a supplemental appropriations bill, which he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky estimate will cost between $12 to $15
Champion Briefs 297 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
MARSHALL , SERENA. "Why Executive Order May Not Be Enough For Trump To Build Border Wall." ABC News. January 26, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Champion Briefs 298 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
DA Extension: Trump can’t use the Secure Fence Act to fund the wall.
Weiss, Debra. "Scalia Opinion On EPA Regulations Could Block Trump's Wall." ABA Journal. January 26, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Trump’s executive order, signed on Wednesday, calls for immediate construction of the wall. But he needs funds to build it, and Mexico has said it won’t pay. If Trump asks Congress to pass a new law, Senate Democrats could mount a filibuster. His executive order cites the Secure Fence Act of 2006, according to this story in the Atlantic, and he may be relying on it for funding authority, according to the op-ed. Congress could rely on the normal appropriations process to fund the wall through the Secure Fence Act, which would be more difficult to block than new legislation, the Washington Post explains here. The op-ed identifies a problem, however. The Secure Fence Act authorizes the secretary of homeland security to take actions to secure the border that are “necessary and appropriate.” That language, like the Clean Air Act language, requires consideration of cost, according to the op-ed by law professors Daniel Hemel, Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner. And the cost-benefit analysis does not favor the wall, they conclude. Trump has said his wall could cost $8 billion, but other estimates have put the cost at $15 billion to $25 billion, the professors say. As for the benefits, the wall won’t stop the majority of immigrants in the country illegally, because they are in the country by overstaying their visas. And the wall won’t stop smugglers from tunneling underneath. Trump has said the wall is needed to block immigrants who come to the country illegally and commit crimes, but there is no evidence such immigrants commit crime at a higher rate than others, the law professors say. If the wall does work, the economic effects of reducing immigrants in the country illegally would likely be zero or negative, the op-ed says. That’s because such immigrants pay taxes, spend money and enhance American productivity. After the op-ed was published, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump plans to pay for the wall with a 20 percent tax on imports into the United States from Mexico. The New York Times story is here. New legislation would be needed to impose the tax.
Champion Briefs 299 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
A2 Impact: Turn: HUD creates geographical racial divisions, preventing equal access to schooling, homes, and entrenching poverty.
Bouie, Jamelle. "America's Fair Housing Backlash." latimes. July 23, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
Some communities might even revolt against the politicians who push and approve of new zoning or building rules. As Thomas Edsall noted in a July 15 column for the New York Times, a HUD mandate in liberal Westchester County, N.Y., was politically lucrative for Republicans in the 2009 and 2013 local elections. They won, and held, the county executive seat, with their strongest margins in the mostly white towns where HUD required affordable housing. For most of the 20th century, state and local governments — with federal backing — carved America's landscape into white-only and black-only areas. In cities such as New York; Newark, N.J.; Philadelphia; Baltimore; Cleveland; Detroit; St. Louis; Madison, Wis.; Minneapolis and many others, minorities were kept from owning good homes, attending good schools and earning their piece of American prosperity. With exclusionary zoning and racist lending, we kept millions of people from opportunity, while taking their taxes for services they couldn't enjoy. Far from social engineering or an "annexation," affirmative fair housing rules constitute a modest effort to rectify a real and ongoing injustice. With any luck, affluent Americans will see that they've been on the most fortunate side of history, and that it's time to pay it forward.
Champion Briefs 300 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
A2 Uniqueness: Trump is using executive orders on all campaign promises and shows no sign of stopping.
Horowitz, Evan. "What’s An Executive Order? And, More Importantly, How Is Trump Using Them?" BostonGlobe. January 26, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Donald Trump has had a busy first week, signing executive orders on topics from immigration to energy policy, health care to trade. One signing at a time, he has shown himself ready to advance his sometimes-inflammatory campaign promises. There will be no pivot, no moderation, no fresh perspective borne of contact with the awesome power of his office. But the spate of executive orders has also raised a basic civics question: How much can Trump accomplish via unilateral action? Here’s what you need to know about the origin, power, and limits of executive orders.
Champion Briefs 301 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
A2 Uniqueness: Trump is using executive orders in an unprecetended legal manner – He doesn’t need congress to fulfill campaign promises.
Brookshier, Erin. "Trump’s First Two Weeks Center On Executive Orders And Twitter." WSLS. February 06, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Since moving into the White House, President Trump has embraced his authority to issue executive orders. It’s something presidents have done since the beginning– starting with George Washington. A president bypassing congress to issue an executive order is not rare, but the kind of outcry and legal pushback we’ve seen in these first two weeks are. So far, President Trump has signed eight executive orders– a number that may seem high, but experts say is relatively consistent with what we see in the opening weeks of a new administration. WSLS10 Political Analyst, Dr. Ed Lynch, says many times those first few executive orders are more ceremonial, without the immediate impact and fallout that the temporary travel ban brought. Here’s how some of our most memorable presidents stack up when it comes to executive orders: -Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 3,522 executive orders during his time in office -Woodrow Wilson signed 1,803 executive orders in just eight years -George W. Bush issued 291 executive orders – Barack Obama issued 276 Dr. Lynch says there’s a difference in what we’ve seen so far from President Trump and the orders we saw signed by President Obama. “President Obama signed executive orders after, in his wording, Congress failed to act,” explains Lynch. “He contradicted what Congress wanted with his executive orders. There’s no sign that Congress, at least the majority in Congress, is opposed to what President Trump is doing. They haven’t opined on it or passed it one way or the other, so these are very different sorts of executive orders than what we saw in the last presidency.”
Champion Briefs 302 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
A2 Trump Poly Cap: Trump’s claims of voter fraud has drained his political – No way to get GOP in line.
Shephard, Alex. "Keep Delegitimizing Donald Trump, It’s Working." New Republic. January 23, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that millions voted illegally—there isn’t even evidence to support a claim that hundreds voted illegally. Recounts in key states have shown no statistically significant evidence of voter fraud. Trump is fixated on the result of the election because he seems to be obsessed with his own legitimacy as president. This fixation not only further damages his presidency by showcasing Trump’s pettiness and narcissism, it also ties him up—it damages his political capital and distracts him from pushing his destructive policies. Obviously this won’t stop Trump from doing a lot of damage, but reminding the country—and Trump himself—of his historic unpopularity is still a winning political tactic. Let’s keep it up.
Champion Briefs 303 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Non-unique: All indications point toward Trump imposing a Muslim registry now.
Hauslohner, Abigail. "Is The Trump Administration Really Going To Launch A Registry For Muslims?" Washington Post. November 16, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
A key member of Donald Trump’s transition team has said that the nascent Trump administration is already weighing a plan to launch a registry for immigrants and visitors from Muslim countries. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who is considered one of Trump’s top advisers and also a possible candidate for attorney general, told Reuters that the president-elect’s advisers have discussed preparing a policy proposal for a registry. A spokesperson for Kobach did not respond to a request for further details. Trump said a year ago that he would support the creation of a database to register Muslims, telling NBC News that he “would certainly implement that — absolutely.” Kobach helped design a similar program after the 9/11 terrorist attacks while serving under former president George W. Bush, Reuters reported. That program, known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, required people from countries deemed “higher risk” to undergo interrogations and fingerprinting upon arrival. Some men were also expected to follow a parole-like system by periodically checking in with local authorities. The program, which civil rights groups said targeted Muslims, was dissolved in 2011. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said that a registry for Muslims would almost certainly be unconstitutional. “The day they create a Muslim registry is the day I register as a Muslim,” he added. Colin Christopher, the deputy head of government affairs at Dar al-Hijrah, one of the largest mosques in Northern Virginia, described the concept of a registry as “immoral and un-American.” Beyond that, he said, “It also lacks a legal foundation. And if this idea transitions to something more serious and is implemented, civil rights organizations will see it in court.” A report released by the FBI on Monday showed that hate crimes against Muslims rose by 67 percent over the course of 2015. Statistics for 2016 are not yet available. Faith leaders and civil rights groups have consistently accused Trump of stoking anti-Muslim sentiments in his calls for policies including a Muslim ban, a Muslim database and “extreme vetting.” In a few reported cases this year, attackers and vandals involved in crimes against Muslims have referred to Trump explicitly. Muslim activists and community leaders have described a wave of fear in Muslim communities across the country in the week since Trump’s unexpected win on Nov. 8. Muslim college students have described harassment on social media, and parents have fretted about whether their daughters will be safe wearing headscarves. “We’re basically calling this 11/9,” said Christopher. “There’s 9/11 and this is 11/9, and in some ways this is more traumatic for our community.” After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, he said, most of America was united in its horror over what happened. On 11/9, the day after Trump’s victory, polls revealed an America that was sharply divided. He said there was “a moment of elation for some, and for others, a moment of horror” over the new policies that might be on America’s immediate horizon. “That’s why I truly believe that 11/9 is going to be more difficult for this country than 9/11,” he said.
Champion Briefs 304 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Non Unique: The Trump Ban on Muslims is already in effect.
Jackson, David. "Trump: No Muslim Ban, Just Immigration Restrictions." USA Today. January 26, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
President Trump denies he is about to authorize a "ban" on Muslim migration, only restrictions on entry from countries with a history of terrorism. "It's countries that have tremendous terror," Trump told ABC News in his first television interview as president. "And it's countries that people are going to come in and cause us tremendous problems." The Trump team is poised to suspend refugee and visa programs as applied to many Muslim countries in the Middle East, including war-torn Syria, with details still being determined. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said there is no set date for issuance of new rules because the "nature of them has not been decided yet." Critics of the imminent orders said they will block law-abiding Muslims trying to escape the very kind of violence Trump is talking about. Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Interfaith Alliance, called it a "de facto" ban on Muslims. "The United States has long prided itself as a safe bastion for refugees around the globe facing persecution and strife," Moline said. "President Trump is poised to trample upon that great legacy in one of his first major acts in office." Trump told ABC News his target is the Islamic State and other extremist groups: "You're looking at people that come in, in many cases, in some cases with evil intentions. I don't want that." Some people could get in, Trump suggested, but only after what he called "extreme vetting." "We're going to have extreme vetting in all cases," he told ABC. "And I mean extreme."
Champion Briefs 305 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Non-Unique:GOP unity is high now – plan can’t derail it.
Werner, Erica. "Congressional Republicans Make Show Of Unity At Retreat In Philadelphia." Times Herald. January 25, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Congressional Republicans summoned a show of unity Wednesday as they gathered for their annual policy retreat days into a rocky start for Donald Trump’s presidency. Senate and House lawmakers arrived in Philadelphia by chartered train and headed into working sessions at a downtown hotel. Their goal: to plan a path forward with the new administration on health care, taxes and other issues. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence were addressing the gathering Thursday, along with British Prime Minister Theresa May, in a first for a foreign head of state. Lawmakers were trying to focus on areas of agreement, downplaying distractions created by Trump’s unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud and the inauguration crowd size. “What we have to do is focus on the things that unite us,” Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 3 Senate Republican, told reporters at a press conference opening the retreat, listing repealing and replacing the “Obamacare” health law, overhauling the loophole-ridden tax code and boosting national security. “Those are clear issues that unite us.”
Champion Briefs 306 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
A2 Political Capital: Presidential political power is virtually irrelevant – Trump does not determine congressional actions.
Hirsh, Michael. "There’s No Such Thing As Political Capital." National Journal. February 08, 2013. Web. February 07, 2017.
The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that the idea of political capital—or mandates, or momentum—is so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. “Presidents usually over- estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.
Champion Briefs 307 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
A2 Wall: Wall Funding can be through an XO – Makes it inevitable.
Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump Floats 20% Tax On Mexican Imports To Pay For Wall." CNN. January 26, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
The White House on Thursday said President Donald Trump is considering a 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for a southern border wall, but that the President is still weighing other options. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Air Force One Thursday that Trump was backing the proposal and had just discussed it with congressional Republicans in a private meeting. Hours later, amid an uproar from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Spicer said that he was simply putting forward one idea Trump is considering to show how the administration could fund the multibillion-dollar construction of a wall on the US's southern border. Spicer repeatedly said the White House was aiming to be "illustrative" rather than "prescriptive" as he walked back the more definitive comments he made earlier Thursday. "Part of our goal today was to demonstrate that there is an easy way -- or several ways -- tone is to generate the reviews because the cost of the wall in the big picture is really not that significant," he said. "Imports (are) one way. I just want to be clear that we're not being prescriptive in saying that is the only way nor is the rate prescriptive." White House chief of staff Reince Priebus also told reporters the White House is considering a "buffet of options" as it considers how to pay for the border wall.
Champion Briefs 308 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
Uniqueness Overwhelms: Paul Ryan will fight deportation and wall – Trump can’t get congress in line.
Staff Writters. "Ryan On Trump's Mass Deportation Plan: 'It's Not Happening." The Hill. January 13, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) insisted that President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promise to deport 11 million immigrants is not going to happen. During a CNN town hall on Thursday night, Ryan was asked by a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program who had with her a young daughter whether she would be deported. “I can see you love your daughter, you are a nice person who has a great future ahead of you, and I hope your future is here,” he said. “What we have to do is find a way to make sure that you can get right with the law, and we’ve got to do this in a good way so that the rug doesn’t get pulled out from under you and your family gets separated.” CNN host Jake Tapper questioned Ryan about Trump’s mass deportation plan, reminding him of the campaign promise to create a “deportation force" to round up millions of immigrants. "I know, I know,” the Speaker said, laughing. "But I'm here to tell you, in Congress, it's not happening.” Ryan said Republicans in Congress are working with the president-elect’s transition team on a plan for immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children. But the Speaker did not indicate any specific change to DACA. "I think we have to come up with a solution for the DACA kids. And that’s something we in Congress and the Trump transition team are working on,” he said. “What’s a good humane solution."
Champion Briefs 309 NEG: Politics DA March/April 2017
A2 Solvency: Housing that is affordable exists even within expensive markets – even if there are tradeoffs, we’ve done the most we can to reduce homelessness.
Clark , Robert. "Affordable Housing Still Exists Even In Some Of The Most Mortgage Burdened US Cities: Zillow." BuzzBuzzHome News. January 30, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
Many of the country’s hottest markets are usually driven by extremely strong job markets and notoriously high home values. But even within these pricey markets, homebuyers can often find housing with less of a financial burden often only a few miles but often with trade-offs, according to a newly released report by the online listing site Zillow. Nationwide, the metro- level mortgage burden is 14.6 percent. In other words, Americans spend on average 14.6 percent of their income on a housing payment. The mortgage burden within many of the country’s hottest markets — like New York City and Silicon Valley — are substantially higher, while homebuyers in a more depressed metro like Detroit, MI will only pay 6 percent of their income on housing. But, within many of the country’s metros where homeowners have, on average, the highest financial burdens, there are often cities in the metro that provide housing with less of a financial burden, says Zillow.
Champion Briefs 310 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Tradeoffs DA
These sets of positions provide unique offense that can be used in a quick manor on case, but also comes with an off-case shell. Although some focus on bigger stick impacts, most argue against affordable housing’s ability to alleviate poverty and provide a better quality of life.
The first set argues that there are job security tradeoffs, and economic stress that is placed on low income households when these housing complexes are offered. Cost of transportation, and job instability because of forced commutes from far away developments, are difficult to reconcile with cheap rent. The amount of money going to the household is diminished, which hurts the ability to pay for even reduced rents. This is a turn on poverty claims, and general housing security.
The shell argues that there is an inherent funding tradeoff between housing security and other social programs. When coupled with case arguments against the ability to resolve things like poverty with affordable housing, it makes a compelling case that even more valuable programs go away.
Although prepared for the most predictable areas of the topic, this file could be continually grown in the less predictable direction that the topic takes. That means focusing on various contentions that may grow beyond subjects like poverty, security, racism, etc.
Most of these arguments are best prepared for a debate under consequentialism, or quality to life. However, it will often function in your opponent’s framework if you are simply turning the contentions. If consequentialism is the preferred direction, there is a large amount of literature on the tradeoffs between food security, and housing security.
Champion Briefs 311 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Uniqueness: Social security is effectively keeping 21 million Americans out of poverty.
Reno, Virginia. "Social Security: The Foundation Of Economic Security." Retirement and Disability Policy. March 21, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
For example, many people know that 10 percent of seniors, or 4.6 million individuals, live in poverty. Yet many don’t know just how important Social Security is in preventing seniors from falling into poverty. If today’s seniors had to rely on only their income from sources other than Social Security, fully 4 in 10 would be poor. Social Security is our nation’s most effective poverty prevention program; its retirement, disability, and survivor benefits keep 21 million Americans out of poverty, including 14 million seniors. So, keeping Social Security strong is one of the best ways that we, as a nation, can address senior poverty and promote economic security for all.
Champion Briefs 312 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Link: Any increase in spending necessitates a tradeoff in other programs.
Sange, Alexandra. "House Passes New Rules For The 112th Congress." National association of community health centers. January 18, 2011. Web. February 07, 2017.
The new rules replace the previous ‘pay-as-you-go’ or PAYGO requirement with a ‘cut-as-you- go’ or cut-go requirement. Cut-go prohibits the House from considering any bill that produces a net increase in mandatory spending within the 1-year, 5-year and 10-year budget windows, as opposed to PAYGO’s ten-year window. If a bill increases mandatory spending by any amount, the bill must cut the budget somewhere by that same amount. Under PAYGO, spending cuts could serve as offsets to spending increases, however, revenue increases could also serve as offsets. Under he ‘cut-go’ rule increases in revenue cannot be used to offset increases in mandatory spending.
Champion Briefs 313 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Internal Link: Republicans will demand that cuts come from major welfare programs and social services.
Mcauliff, Michael. "GOP Passes Deficit-Hiking Tax Cuts, Accuses Dems Of Irresponsibility." Huffington Post. June 12, 2014. Web. February 07, 2017.
Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy, pointing out that a few months ago when the House passed a budget, the GOP declared that the deficit was one of the greatest threats facing the nation. “What happened to all the rhetoric about fiscal discipline, about getting our deficits in order? Out the window,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. Democrats also suggested that the evolving bid to make permanent all the temporary breaks currently on the books amounted to a ruse to make cuts to social programs later on. Rep. Sander Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, noted that Republicans on his panel had already approved permanent tax cuts — including the two passed by the House on Thursday — that would add $614 billion to the deficit over 10 years. And if all the temporary breaks currently on the books were included, Levin said, it would tack $1 trillion onto the nation’s credit card. “The Republicans are going to come back here and say, ‘Wow, look at how much the deficit has increased,’ so you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all of the people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help,” Levin said. Van Hollen noted that the cuts already passed by Ways and Means — most of which benefit big businesses — would cost 30 times what it would cost to extend long-term unemployment insurance for a significant period of time.
Champion Briefs 314 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Impact: Cuts in other social programs directly harm poverty rates turns case.
Rank, Mark. "Toward A New Understanding Of American Poverty." Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. January 01, 2006. Web. February 07, 2017.
Similarly, changes in various social supports and the social safety net available to families will make a difference in terms of how well such households are able to avoid poverty or near poverty. When such supports were increased through the War on Poverty initiatives of the 1960s, poverty rates declined.57 Likewise, when Social Security benefits were expanded during the 1960s and 1970s, poverty rates among the elderly declined precipitously.58 Conversely, when social supports have been weakened and eroded, as was the case with children’s programs during the past twenty-five years, poverty rates have gone up.59 The recognition of poverty as a structural failing also makes it quite clear why the United States has such high poverty rates as compared to other Western countries. These rates have nothing to do with Americans being less motivated or less skilled than individuals in other countries, but have to do instead with the fact that our economy has produced a plethora of low-wage jobs in the face of global competition and that our social policies have done relatively little to support families compared to those of our European neighbors. From this perspective, one of the keys to addressing poverty is to increase the labor market opportunities and social supports available to American households. In sum, a shift in thinking about the causes of poverty from an individually to a structurally based explanation allows us to distinguish and make sense of two specific questions. First, why does poverty exist? Second, who is more likely to experience poverty? Poverty exists primarily as a result of a shortage of viable economic opportunities and social supports for the entire population. Given this shortage, a certain percentage of the population is ensured of experiencing poverty. Individuals with a heightened risk of being on the short end of this economic stick will be those who are least able to effectively compete for the limited number of decent economic opportunities. This includes those with fewer marketable skills, less education and ill health, as well as single parents, racial minorities, and residents in economically depressed areas. A new paradigm recognizes the fundamental distinction between understanding who loses out at the game, versus understanding how and why the game produces losers in the first place.
Champion Briefs 315 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
A2 Cut-Go procedures: Cut-go rules are often ignored or not followed.
Dish, Daily. "Budget Gimmicks." Atlantic. March 04, 2010. Web. February 07, 2017.
The important thing to remember about all budget gimmicks is that they there are really only two ways to change the federal deficit: raise more revenues, or cut spending. The presidents and Congresses that have really wanted to cut deficits (most notably George H.W. Bush in 1990 and Bill Clinton in 1993, along with Democratic Congresses in both cases) have done so by actually supporting proposals that would change government revenues and/or outlays. Any time you hear someone propose a budget gimmick instead of proposing to raise revenues or cut spending, you can be fairly certain that it's just hot air. The only exception I'd make would be for a pol who does both. Barack Obama, for example, is putting together a commission which is purely a public relations gimmick, but he's also supporting a health care plan that will, if implemented, probably cut the long-term deficit quite a bit. (Commissions can work if everyone involved wants to do something but doesn't want to leave fingerprints; that's not the case with Obama's commission). In general, I'd probably be willing to speculate that the more distant the gimmick, the less serious the authors are about it. So the one gimmick that actually might matter is the Democrats' PAYGO rules…although even there, the only real way it's going to matter is if Congress and the president abide by those rules, which means that the rules themselves are close to, although not quite completely, irrelevant.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 316 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Affordable housing does not reduce poverty: Best evidence proves it creates equal financial trade offs.
Renne, John. "Is HUD Housing Affordable? New Study Says Not When You Factor In Costs To Commute." ScienceDaily. March 29, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
"HUD does not factor transportation costs into how they measure affordability. Many low- income people on Section 8 are forced to live in inaccessible locations where they can find landlords willing to accept the vouchers, which are often far from their jobs or quality transit service to reach their jobs," said John Renne, Ph.D., study co-author and director and associate professor in the Center for Urban & Environmental Solutions in the School of Urban and Regional Planning within the College for Design and Social Inquiry at FAU. "Transportation costs, after housing, is the second biggest expense in the budgets of most American households, especially for those who live in suburban areas with poor transit connectivity." According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, housing plus transportation costs consumed 43 percent of U.S. household incomes in 2011. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions in the U.S., Renne and his collaborators estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at 8,857 HUD rental assistance properties. The regions used in the study were as diverse as Boston and Portland, Ore. at one end of the urban form continuum and Houston and Kansas City, Mo. at the other. Models in the study were specific to low-income households, a group that has received little attention in literature on travel and transportation.
Champion Briefs 317 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Affordable housing projects trade off with food production – It reduces food security.
Ferguson , Carol. "The Status Of Nonprofit-Owned Affordable Housing: Short-Term Successes And Long-Term Challenges." Journal of the American Planning Association. October 01, 1992. Web. February 07, 2017.
Protecting farm land from conversion to another use is a problem of land quality, ie preservation of those areas best able to sustain agricultural production.’ While farmland protection has faded as a national issue, local governments have expressed continued concern over the loss of high- quality land within their jurisdictions. The problem is most visible at the fringe of expanding metropolitan areas, where farmers compete for available land with urban-type developments. Here policy makers must weigh the benefits of preserving agriculture and open space against the potential gains to urban land uses, particularly housing.2 As urbanization in developed countries has reached further out into the countryside with sporadic low-density settlement, pressures have grown to develop greater quantities of open land. There is a widespread perception that cities naturally expand into prime agricultural areas. This may be expected since many of the physical and locational factors determining land suitability for farming likewise affect developed uses.j A review of studies on urbanization in North America, for which data are more complete, finds no overall bias in converting better cropland.” But some regions have experienced disproportionate losses where terrain and water availability limit development options. Competition over natural resources and conflicts with nearby residents can reduce farm economic viability at the urban fringe, adding to the pressure for conversion. In response many local governments have instituted various policies to protect farmers and remaining farm 1ands.s While the primary goal may be to retain economic opportunities in agriculture and local food supplies, such programmes can also serve to safeguard rural lifestyles and heritage. The urbanized population has lent considerable support to these efforts for their own reasons, such as preserving open space and natural landscapes. Farmland protection can provide additional benefits by promoting compact development without sprawl, thereby reducing spillovers from agriculture and cost of public services.
Champion Briefs 318 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Equal housing initiatives lower community social capital – It derails movements critical for long term change.
Edsall, Thomas. "Who Will Pay The Political Price For Affordable Housing?" American Renaissance. July 17, 2015. Web. February 07, 2017.
Astorino’s strongest margins of victory against Spano were in the overwhelmingly white towns where the consent decree called for the construction of affordable housing. {snip} For example, Robert Sampson, a sociologist at Harvard who strongly supports affordable-housing initiatives, noted the possibility of a political backlash: We could well see resistance. Westchester is a case in point, especially since it is a county of almost a million people, and 750 units is a very small penetration for a population that big. If there is resistance on that small scale, imagine if the flow were much larger and extended to counties that are less liberal or Democratic. {snip} While conservatives have long railed against federal enforcement of fair housing legislation, some liberal analysts cite problems they attribute to the difficulty of racial and ethnic integration. Perhaps most famously, Robert Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, reported in his 2007 essay “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” that in the short run: immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the U.S. suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust, even of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. Diverse communities, Putnam wrote, “tend to be larger, more mobile, less egalitarian, more crime-ridden.”
Champion Briefs 319 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Best evidence proves Affordable housing isn’t actually affordable – tradesoff with location and transportation.
Galoustian, Gisele. "Is HUD Housing Affordable? Not If You Factor Commute Costs : Florida Atlantic University." Florida Atlantic University. March 29, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
Where to live can be a dilemma for many Americans. Do you pay more for housing located near work and other destinations or do you pay less for housing that requires extensive driving? What about families with housing subsidies? Does this tradeoff on housing and transportation expenses hold true for them? That’s what researchers from Florida Atlantic University, the University of Texas, Arlington, and the University of Utah sought to find out in the first study to evaluate the affordability of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Multifamily recipients. The evidence-based research, recently published in the journal Housing Policy Debate, is the largest sample of household travel records ever assembled for such a study outside the National Household Travel Survey. “HUD does not factor transportation costs into how they measure affordability. Many low-income people on Section 8 are forced to live in inaccessible locations where they can find landlords willing to accept the vouchers, which are often far from their jobs or quality transit service to reach their jobs,” said John Renne, Ph.D., study co-author and director and associate professor in the Center for Urban & Environmental Solutions in the School of Urban and Regional Planning within the College for Design and Social Inquiry at FAU. “Transportation costs, after housing, is the second biggest expense in the budgets of most American households, especially for those who live in suburban areas with poor transit connectivity.”
Champion Briefs 320 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
More subsidized housing tradeoffs with affordability, hurting the poorest few – You can either have more houses, or more affordability.
Cheney, Brendan. "De Blasio Housing Plan Shapes Up As Historic-scale 'trade-off'." Politico. July 26, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
It's not for lack of ambition about tackling the city's seemingly permanent affordable housing crisis. De Blasio has called his housing plan "literally the largest and most ambitious affordable housing program initiated by any city in this country in the history of the United States of America," and he plans to spend some $8 billion on the effort. If successful, the plan will build or preserve 200,000 residential units over 10 years. (By comparison, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's housing plan — itself considered to be ambitious at the time — built or preserved 165,000 units over 11 years.) So far, since de Blasio became mayor, the plan has financed almost 53,000 units as of June 30, putting the administration on pace to reach the ten-year goal. And when de Blasio released the most recent numbers on Tuesday, he said they showed that the city was producing a higher percentage of housing for the lowest-income New Yorkers than they had planned. But even on such a scale, the plan is premised on an admitted "trade-off" of sorts — lots more housing supply for lots of people who can afford to pay some rent, rather than less new housing for a smaller number of people who need the help even more desperately.
Champion Briefs 321 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
True affordable housing is impossible – Rents are not enough to continue running houses even when subsidized.
Cheney, Brendan. "De Blasio Housing Plan Shapes Up As Historic-scale 'trade-off'." Politico. July 26, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
How much more expensive is housing for very low income households? According to numbers provided to POLITICO New York by Nixon Peabody, a law firm with experience in affordable housing in New York City, if the city spends $25 million in capital subsidy, they can create 100 apartments for very low income households. But that same subsidy could produce roughly 250 apartments for low income families, or 2.5 times as many apartments, because the higher rents cover more costs. And according to Nixon Peabody data, at rents below roughly $25,150 for a family of three, they would need to use expense funding every year to support the housing because the rents are so low they don't cover the operating costs of the building. With these costs, even if de Blasio decided to change the focus of the plan towards the lowest incomes, it still couldn't solve the problem.
Champion Briefs 322 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Subsidy amounts are simply not enough to alleviate homelessness – There is not enough money.
Cheney, Brendan. "De Blasio Housing Plan Shapes Up As Historic-scale 'trade-off'." Politico. July 26, 2016. Web. February 07, 2017.
For example, the funding for the 116,000 low income apartments could instead yield roughly 46,000 additional apartments for very low income households. This would more than double the number of housing for very low income households in the plan, but still falls well short of the 133,000 very low income households that are severely rent burdened, not to mention the extremely low income. City Planning Commissioner Carl Weisbrod told POLTICO New York that New York City would need 500,000 affordable apartments to ease the current crisis. De Blasio himself has maintained that "fundamental" change in the city's housing situation is possible, if a long way off. In a New York Magazine article last year de Blasio said, “We have to fundamentally address the affordable housing crisis. That’s how I believe I should be defined when it’s all done.”
Champion Briefs 323 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Non-unique: Trump is already massively cutting food stamp programs – makes impact inevitable.
Dumat-Ol, Gaynor. "Food Stamps, Welfare Could Get Chopped Under Trump." Pacific Daily News. December 04, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
A conservative Washington, D.C., think tank which touts that some of its experts are involved in President-elect Trump’s transition team, is recommending welfare spending cuts that could affect many struggling Guam households if implemented. The Heritage Foundation recently released what it called a “Blueprint for Reform: A Comprehensive Policy Agenda for a New Administration in 2017.” In it, the foundation suggests that welfare programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or more commonly called food stamps, be reformed because it “fails to improve self-sufficiency and the cost of the welfare system is unsustainable.”
Champion Briefs 324 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Trump won’t make cuts – Although running as a conservative, his execution is moderate.
Lowry, Rich. "Welcome To Europe." National Review. March 01, 2016. Web. February 08, 2017.
What has made American politics so distinctive for so long is the presence of a mass party committed to limited government, thanks to the conservative movement. In most European countries, there is nothing like such a movement, and the limited-government tendency is relegated to think tanks and small political parties, where it usually has no real influence. RELATED: Trump, the Would-be Tyrant Trump as the leader of the Republican party would, in effect, reject limited-government conservatism and instantly make the GOP at the presidential level more like an accommodationist center-right European party in which a Ted Cruz would have no home. Of course, mainstream European political parties tend not to be nationalist or anti-immigration. Here, Trump bears a closer resemblance to Europe’s outsider parties on the right. He is less the candidate of American exceptionalism – which has a keen appreciation of our national creed as enunciated in the Declaration and the limits on government power set down by the Constitution — than a robust nationalism of a blood-and-soil variety found nearly everywhere else in the world.
Champion Briefs 325 NEG: Tradeoffs DA March/April 2017
Trump is cutting back government spending and taxation – Makes underfunding of welfare inevitable.
PERIES , SHARMINI. "Developer Welfare: Trump’s Infrastructure Plan.". January 24, 2017. Web. February 08, 2017.
SHARMINI PERIES: So, Michael, what does he mean by this kind of infrastructure building? MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, he’s talked a lot about infrastructure and there are a lot of different ways of doing infrastructure. I don’t think his way will be the way that it was done a hundred years ago. The whole idea of the Republican Party in the 19th century was for the government to finance infrastructure, and especially transportation, to lower the cost of living and doing business. But I don’t think that’s what Trump is going to do, because he wants to cut back government spending and he wants to cut back taxation. So what I worry about is when he says, “I’m going to build infrastructure” is that it means that he’s going to create a huge trillion-dollar market for Wall Street’s high finance.
Champion Briefs 326 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Racism NC
The racism NC can be constructed into a kritik, general NC, or case turns to critically slanted or structural violence affirmatives. The majority of the cards in this section follow the general theme of ‘public housing is net harmful to marginalized communities’. The warrants in these cards include that public housing leads to gentrification, public housing conditions are bad, as well as issues such as economic burdens associated with locations of housing.
This argument I imagine next to economic arguments is going to be one of the most popular arguments on the topic. This topic can be shifted for circuit or local argument depending on how the case is structured. The most effective way to present this as far as time and effectiveness is to make a brief framework about how racism is a prior issue (think Memmi evidence) and then cards outlining how every time the government try’s to provide accessible housing it either unintentionally or even intentionally is racist.
There is a lot of empirically examples on how public housing is structurally violent.
Thus, this case is good against affirmatives that look to pass some sort of plan to give everyone housing or defend some sort of solvency advocate. This argument is less effective against affirmatives that discuss why a right to housing exists because, affirmatives that focus on rights don't necessarily have to defend a link to the implementation or creation of housing. If this argument is read as a kritik it can be a great stand alone argument or a lot of the cards also dive into the intricacies of the economic system so they would make great impacts or link of a cap kritik.
There are another two arguments in this section: the gentrification disadvantage and the right to the city counterplan. The gentrification disadvantage discusses the way that mixed- income housing promotes even further gentrification, rather than solve for it. It is important to
Champion Briefs 327 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
ensure that the links you are reading are specific to the aff that is being read; the links in this file only pertain to mixed-income housing. This disadvantage is largely strategic against affirmatives that claim to solve some form of oppression, so the essence of the debate then becomes one of evidence comparison and weighing. As noted in the topic analysis, one mechanism of comparison may be to compare different theories of the causes of gentrification (supply-side, demand-side, or some other alternative).
The right to the city argument can either be packaged in the form of a Capitalism Kritik with the right to the city as an alternative, or as a straight up counterplan. This position argues that the processes of urbanization have become increasingly undemocratic and capitalist, so we must put the processes of development back in the hands of those who actually inhabit the city.
The Marcuse evidence, as well as the Purcell evidence, provide decent reasons why this counterplan is competitive with the aff, aside from competing through net benefits. Strategically, one may be able to read the Gentrification DA in conjunction with the Right to the city CP, leveraging the DA as a reason why the CP is net beneficial and thus competitive. This is because the arguments in the gentrification evidence make explicit claims about how neoliberalism is also a driving force in the way gentrification occurs. As a result, the CP, by shifting away from a neoliberal and a capitalist system, may be able to avoid the DA.
Champion Briefs 328 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Government housing faces multiple challenges such as cost and equity protections.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Were we to accept, politically, the need to establish a Right to Housing, we then would have to fill in the details as to the content of that right. While we're not at that point, and all our energies should focus on achieving the principle and acceptance that there should be a Right to Housing, it is useful at least to list what elements need to be considered. o Affordability standards. Rather than the usual percentage-of-income rule, Michael Stone, the late Cushing Dolbeare and others have put forward an approach that should be the operating principle - ensuring that all non- shelter needs, in addition to housing costs, can be met, thus producing a percentage figure that is not a fixed number but a variable according to household size and income level. o Physical condition and space standards. The best local housing code standards (following a detailed examination of these ordinances) might be posited, or possibly HUD's Housing Quality Standards. Overcrowding standards must guard, on the one hand, against cultural bias and, on the other hand, against accepting dramatically lower standards for the poor. o A suitable living environment. With regard to the super-important issue of neighborhood quality, there are few, if any, usable standards at present, and so serious work must be undertaken to develop these. And security of tenure should be a key element, too, while allowing for reasonable land-use changes.
Champion Briefs 329 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
The lack of housing is a hidden problem linked to the segregation of communities based on race and class.
Hartman, Chestur. "The Case For A Right To Housing." National Housing Institute. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
I would suggest several reasons for non-attention. One is that, to a large extent, the fact that one- third of the nation still is ill-housed is a hidden problem. Lack of affordability - our number-one problem - and its broader implications on poor people's lives is not something the fortunate among us experience or even know about. Spatially, too, the rise of gated communities, sprawl and the extreme residential segregation by class and race keep those on top from knowing much about those on the bottom - a form of "American Apartheid," as Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton's 1993 study so aptly put it. Race is its own barrier. The creation of a true Right to Housing bumps squarely against issues of location and access. Who is to live near whom, go to school with whom? Americans simply don't want to acknowledge the workings and vast impact of structural racism, let alone individual racist attitudes and behavior. How to deal with that confounds us. But unless and until we face that problem, it will inhibit serious movement toward providing all Americans - black, brown, yellow, white and all the skin color mixtures in between - with this basic need and right. Cost is possibly another barrier. To provide every American household with decent, affordable housing, given the large and widening gap between incomes and housing costs, will require vastly more government subsidies than we now devote to housing - the exact amount of course depends on what kinds of programs, what systems of financing, ownership, development and management we choose (the more market-oriented, the larger the cost; the more we create a social housing sector, the smaller the cost), but think along the lines of $80-100 billion annually. Maybe it would be an easier sell if we make clear the costs of having one-third of a nation ill-housed - and explain how eliminating those costs greatly reduces the bill. And it may be an easier sell if we drive home the point that upper-income taxpayers already get subsidies of that order via the tax system. Not that the society can't afford this: look how easily we come up with similar amounts to bail out savings and loans, make war, give massive tax breaks to the wealthy. It's all a matter of political will.
Champion Briefs 330 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Federal housing policies like section 8 create ghettos.
Semuels, Alana. "How Housing Policy Is Failing Americas Poor." The Atlantic. June 24, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
Technically, voucher holders can live anywhere in a region that meets the price restrictions. But the tendency is for people to stay in neighborhoods that are familiar to them, though a few areas have created robust mobility-counseling programs to try and mitigate this. Additionally, as Eva Rosen has detailed, landlords in low-income areas aggressively recruit voucher-holders, as the vouchers are a much more reliable source of rent than other low-income tenants have available. The failings of Section 8 go far beyond flaws in how the program was designed to how the the states have implemented it. People can argue all they want about the merits of subsidized housing, but given that Section 8 exists, it would seem advantageous for states and municipalities to take advantage of federal funds to help families find better housing. But many states seem especially determined to keep voucher-holders in areas of concentrated poverty. “The whole idea of Section 8 in the beginning was that it was going to allow people to get out of the ghetto,” said Mike Daniel, a lawyer for the Inclusive Communities Project, told me. (Daniel has sued HUD over the way it is carrying out the program in Dallas.) “But there’s tremendous political pressure on housing authorities and HUD to not let it become an instrument of desegregation.” For example, in much of the country, landlords can refuse to take Section 8 vouchers, even if the voucher covers the rent. And, unlike the landlords in poor neighborhoods in Eva Rosen’s study, many landlords of buildings in nicer neighborhoods will do anything to keep voucher-holders out. The result is that Section 8 traps families in the poorest neighborhoods.
Champion Briefs 331 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
De Facto segregation occurs do to government policy surrounding housing.
NPR,. "Historian Says Don." NPR. May 14, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
Fifty years after the repeal of Jim Crow, many African-Americans still live in segregated ghettos in the country's metropolitan areas. Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, has spent years studying the history of residential segregation in America. "We have a myth today that the ghettos in metropolitan areas around the country are what the Supreme Court calls 'de-facto' — just the accident of the fact that people have not enough income to move into middle class neighborhoods or because real estate agents steered black and white families to different neighborhoods or because there was white flight," Rothstein tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "It was not the unintended effect of benign policies," he says. "It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that's the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies."
Champion Briefs 332 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Sanitizing the language of ghettos ignores their historical roots.
NPR. "Historian Says Don." NPR. May 14, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
One of the ways in which we forget our history is by sanitizing our language and pretending that these problems don't exist. We have always recognized that these were "ghettos." A ghetto is, as I define it, a neighborhood which is homogeneous and from which there are serious barriers to exit. That's the technical definition of a ghetto. Robert Weaver, the first African-American member of the Cabinet appointed by President Johnson as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, described many of the policies that I've described today in a book he published in 1948 called The Negro Ghetto. The Kerner Commission referred to the ghetto. This is a term that we no longer use because we're embarrassed to talk about it, and we need to confront our history and stop sanitizing our language and talk openly about what we've done as a nation and what we need to do to undo it. And we can't talk openly if we're going to use euphemisms instead of being explicit about what the reality is.
Champion Briefs 333 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Government policy is a means of keeping the ghetto as 'lesser'. Rent is unequal causing lack of equity.
NPR. "Historian Says Don." NPR. May 14, 2015. Web. February 06, 2017.
In the ghettos, government policy — municipal policy, for example — denied adequate services, garbage wasn't collected frequently. African-Americans were crowded into neighborhoods in the ghetto because so much other housing was closed to them and as a result, housing prices in ghettos were much higher than similar housing in white areas. Rents were much higher than similar housing in white areas … because you had a smaller supply. It's the basic laws of supply and demand… So this created slum conditions. So when African-Americans managed to break out of those slums and buy a home in a neighboring area, whites could be persuaded that slum conditions were going to be brought with them. So the real estate agents would go into these neighborhoods and try to panic white families into selling their homes cheap to the real estate agents. They used techniques: They would recruit blacks from the ghetto to walk around the neighborhood pushing baby carriages. They would phone call families in the white area and ask for names that were stereotypically African-American… All intended to give the impression that this was rapidly turning into another black slum. The white families who panicked would then sell their homes to the real estate agents or the speculators at prices far below what they were worth. The speculators would then turn around and resell the homes to African-Americans at far more than they were worth because of the restricted supply, and this policy was called "blockbusting" and it was a policy that was condoned by state licensing boards throughout the country.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 334 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Government housing policy is fraught with racism. Policies like redlining assure unequal access to housing.
BOUIE, JAMELLE. "How We Built The Ghettos.". March 13, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017. < http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/how-we-built-the-ghettos.html>.
Redlining is the practice of denying key services (like home loans and insurance) or increasing their costs for residents in a defined geographical area. In theory, this could be used against anyone. In reality, it was almost exclusively a tool to force blacks (and other minorities) into particular geographic areas. The practice began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration, as well as the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. It was this agency which created “residential security maps” for several cities to determine the safety of real estate investments in selected areas. You should already see where this is going: Existing black neighborhoods were lined as unsafe, and thus ineligible for financing. For prospective property owner, this was terrible: Absent cash on hand, there was no way to afford a home or a business in your area. What’s more, blacks were all but barred from entering white neighborhoods, if not by restrictive racial covenants (which forbid property sales to African Americans and other minorities) then by violence and intimidation. In Chicago, for instance, anti-black riots were a regular part of public life. Here’s Arnold Hirsch, author of Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960: On July 28, 1957, a crowd of 6,000 to 7,000 whites attacked 100 black picnickers who occupied a portion of the park that had previously been “reserved” for whites. Though blacks had used the park in the past, they were customarily restricted to certain portions of it. More than 500 police were needed to calm the area after two days of disturbances. On the first day alone at least forty-seven persons were injured and sixty to seventy cars stoned. Rioters spilled out of the park, attacked police officers attempting arrests, and, eventually, placed the entire area between the nearby Trumbull Park Homes and Calumet Park in turmoil. Police squadrons had to form a “flying wedge” to break through the crowd to rescue blacks besieged in the park. In the late 1940s, he writes, there was “one racially motivated bombing or arson” every twenty days. In short, redlining forced blacks into particular areas and then starved those areas of affordable capital. Combined with widespread job discrimination—which barred blacks from public employment and forced them into low-wage labor—you had neighborhoods that were impoverished by design.
Champion Briefs 335 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Historically accessible housing is used to manipulate housing markets by driving fear of an out group moving into an area.
BOUIE, JAMELLE. "How We Built The Ghettos.". March 13, 2014. Web. February 06, 2017. < http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/how-we-built-the-ghettos.html>.
Related to this was block-busting. Remember, many of these cities faced a housing shortage, due to the large number of black migrants. Panicked by the prospect of black neighbors—and facilitated by highways and subsidized mortgage loans—countless whites left the cities for the suburbs. They were pushed along by “block-busters”; unscrupulous realtors who encouraged blacks to move into white areas (or created the appearance of transition), sparking an exodus and driving down prices. Once completed, more respectable realtors converted the homes and apartments into multi-family dwellings, cramming large groups into row houses meant for a handful of people. “In one Oakland apartment,” writes Hirsch, “the space that was rented to one white family at $25 per month was able to house three black families at $100 per month.” Journalist Isabelle Wilkinson describes the human side of this in her wonderful book, The Warmth of Other Suns. Block-busting inspired tremendous violence and anti-black sentiment, especially from working-class whites, who were often outbid by blacks, but couldn’t afford suburban housing outside of the city. What’s more, it—along with contract-buying and the destruction of the tax base—helped create the perception that blacks were responsible for the deterioration of a neighborhood. All of these tools and approaches were facilitated by the federal government and its partners at the state and local level. For decades, it was a project of Democrats and Republicans, who worked to appease a white supremacist majority, and often, shared their assumptions. This continued into the 1960s, and arguably, never stopped: Public housing projects, for instance, were placed in these segregated, depressed neighborhoods as a compromise with conservatives who opposed them outright. This, in turn, ensured concentrated poverty and all its attendant problems, as well as bad schools and poor public services. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was meant to tackle all of this, but as Nikole Hannah-Jones details for ProPublica, it saw sporadic enforcement, if that. After a half century (or more), it’s not hard to see how we get to here from there: When you prevent a whole class of people from building wealth, accessing capital, or leaving impoverished areas, you guarantee cultural dysfunction and deep, generational poverty. When it comes to inner-city poverty—we built that.
Champion Briefs 336 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Right to the City approach is net beneficial, three reasons.
Marcuse , Peter. "From Critical Urban Theory To The Right To The City." City Vol. 13 , Iss. 2- 3. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
The distinction has three political consequences. The first is an organisational one: it has to do with the nature of the forces, groups and organisations that have a common interest in pursuing the right and the idea that it is not one separate right that is being demanded, but in effect, one right that includes them all and can be a basis for bringing their separate advocates together. The landless demand land; the homeless demand housing; the unemployed demand decent employment with fulfilling work; the creative demand artistic freedom; the differently abled demand adaptation to their needs; all demand beauty in their environment, access to nature and health care. However, these are not separate demands in a unitary view — they are essentially linked, not only in the vision of a city that can provide for them, but also in the analysis of why they do not exist today, what forces impede their realization, and what forces, groups and individuals have a common interest in achieving their multiple goals. So the first implication of the distinction is the strategic importance of linking separate rights into a movement for a single right that encompasses them all; an implication that begins as coalition-building but is in effect a movement bringing together those with fundamentally common interests. Coalitions consist of groups that agree each will support the other’s separate interests for their mutual strategic advantage. A movement for right to the city brings together those with a common interest, if although initially with different practical priorities. The second importance of the distinction is an analytical one: the unitary vision further pushes the analysis to an understanding of the system as a whole. This is the second political implication of the distinction between the unitary and the plural view of the demand. It leads to an examination of what makes the system tick, what produces the pain and what produces the benefits it achieves, what its weaknesses and its strengths are — beyond what a simple analysis of the causes of individual problems and subsystems produces. The danger of cooptation of separated campaigns for separate rights has often been pointed out: artists who oppose gentrification, advance it when they themselves benefit from it, workers want jobs in plants that pollute, the elderly support health care programs that tilt resources in their favour, individual minority groups are happy to accept inclusion in political structures that exclude other groups, and the unemployed resist immigration reforms that they see as not in their interests. Yet a unitary view of the system helps to clarify that these are only superficially conflicting interests, and that all sides have a deep interest in working together to achieve a single city that will meet all of their needs. The third importance of the distinction is that the unitary view raises the stakes and holds out the hope for a greater benefit and a brighter future, one that not only avoids a particular problem but that leads to a whole other and better world. It gives meaning to the slogan “Another World is Possible,” and calls for its creation. It can provide a motivation, an inspiration, and a justification for a commitment that extends beyond the remedy of individual wrongs. Changing the vision to a whole new one may seem utopian on a day-to-day basis, but it should be a constant presence in the background if an ongoing affirmative perspective is to be maintained.
Champion Briefs 337 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
The root cause of the aff's impacts is the capitalist urbanization process.
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
Surplus absorption through urban transformation has an even darker aspect. It has entailed repeated bouts of urban restructuring through ‘creative destruction’, which nearly always has a class dimension since it is the poor, the underprivileged and those marginalized from political power that suffer first and foremost from this process. Violence is required to build the new urban world on the wreckage of the old. Haussmann tore through the old Parisian slums, using powers of expropriation in the name of civic improvement and renovation. He deliberately engineered the removal of much of the working class and other unruly elements from the city centre, where they constituted a threat to public order and political power. He created an urban form where it was believed—incorrectly, as it turned out in 1871—that sufficient levels of surveillance and military control could be attained to ensure that revolutionary movements would easily be brought to heel. Nevertheless, as Engels pointed out in 1872:
In reality, the bourgeoisie has only one method of solving the housing question after its fashion—that is to say, of solving it in such a way that the solution continually reproduces the question anew. This method is called ‘Haussmann’ … No matter how different the reasons may be, the result is always the same; the scandalous alleys and lanes disappear to the accompaniment of lavish self-praise from the bourgeoisie on account of this tremendous success, but they appear again immediately somewhere else … The same economic necessity which produced them in the first place, produces them in the next place. [10]
It took more than a hundred years to complete the embourgeoisement of central Paris, with the consequences seen in recent years of uprisings and mayhem in those isolated suburbs that trap marginalized immigrants, unemployed workers and youth. The sad point here, of course, is that what Engels described recurs throughout history. Robert Moses ‘took a meat axe to the Bronx’, in his infamous words, bringing forth long and loud laments from neighbourhood groups and movements. In the cases of Paris and New York, once the power of state expropriations had been successfully resisted and contained, a more insidious and cancerous progression took hold through municipal fiscal discipline, property speculation and the sorting of land-use according to the rate of return for its ‘highest and best use’. Engels understood this sequence all too well:
The growth of the big modern cities gives the land in certain areas, particularly in those areas which are centrally situated, an artificially and colossally increasing value; the buildings erected on these areas depress this value instead of increasing it, because they no longer belong to the changed circumstances. They are pulled down and replaced by others. This takes place above all with workers’ houses which are situated centrally and whose rents, even with the greatest overcrowding, can never, or only very slowly, increase above a certain maximum. They are pulled down and in their stead shops, warehouses and public buildings are erected. [11]
Champion Briefs 338 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
Though this description was written in 1872, it applies directly to contemporary urban development in much of Asia—Delhi, Seoul, Mumbai—as well as gentrification in New York. A process of displacement and what I call ‘accumulation by dispossession’ lie at the core of urbanization under capitalism. [12] It is the mirror-image of capital absorption through urban redevelopment, and is giving rise to numerous conflicts over the capture of valuable land from low-income populations that may have lived there for many years.
Consider the case of Seoul in the 1990s: construction companies and developers hired goon squads of sumo-wrestler types to invade neighbourhoods on the city’s hillsides. They sledgehammered down not only housing but also all the possessions of those who had built their own homes in the 1950s on what had become premium land. High-rise towers, which show no trace of the brutality that permitted their construction, now cover most of those hillsides. In Mumbai, meanwhile, 6 million people officially considered as slum dwellers are settled on land without legal title; all maps of the city leave these places blank. With the attempt to turn Mumbai into a global financial centre to rival Shanghai, the property-development boom has gathered pace, and the land that squatters occupy appears increasingly valuable. Dharavi, one of the most prominent slums in Mumbai, is estimated to be worth $2 billion. The pressure to clear it—for environmental and social reasons that mask the land grab—is mounting daily. Financial powers backed by the state push for forcible slum clearance, in some cases violently taking possession of terrain occupied for a whole generation. Capital accumulation through real-estate activity booms, since the land is acquired at almost no cost.
* Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs 339 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Capitalist led urban development destroys any attempt of the coalitional politics of the aff.
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
As in all the preceding phases, this most recent radical expansion of the urban process has brought with it incredible transformations of lifestyle. Quality of urban life has become a commodity, as has the city itself, in a world where consumerism, tourism, cultural and knowledge-based industries have become major aspects of the urban political economy. The postmodernist penchant for encouraging the formation of market niches—in both consumer habits and cultural forms— surrounds the contemporary urban experience with an aura of freedom of choice, provided you have the money. Shopping malls, multiplexes and box stores proliferate, as do fast-food and artisanal market-places. We now have, as urban sociologist Sharon Zukin puts it, ‘pacification by cappuccino’. Even the incoherent, bland and monotonous suburban tract development that continues to dominate in many areas now gets its antidote in a ‘new urbanism’ movement that touts the sale of community and boutique lifestyles to fulfill urban dreams. This is a world in which the neoliberal ethic of intense possessive individualism, and its cognate of political withdrawal from collective forms of action, becomes the template for human socialization. [7] The defence of property values becomes of such paramount political interest that, as Mike Davis points out, the home-owner associations in the state of California become bastions of political reaction, if not of fragmented neighbourhood fascisms. [8]
We increasingly live in divided and conflict-prone urban areas. In the past three decades, the neoliberal turn has restored class power to rich elites. Fourteen billionaires have emerged in Mexico since then, and in 2006 that country boasted the richest man on earth, Carlos Slim, at the same time as the incomes of the poor had either stagnated or diminished. The results are indelibly etched on the spatial forms of our cities, which increasingly consist of fortified fragments, gated communities and privatized public spaces kept under constant surveillance. In the developing world in particular, the city is splitting into different separated parts, with the apparent formation of many ‘microstates’. Wealthy neighbourhoods provided with all kinds of services, such as exclusive schools, golf courses, tennis courts and private police patrolling the area around the clock intertwine with illegal settlements where water is available only at public fountains, no sanitation system exists, electricity is pirated by a privileged few, the roads become mud streams whenever it rains, and where house-sharing is the norm. Each fragment appears to live and function autonomously, sticking firmly to what it has been able to grab in the daily fight for survival. [9]
Under these conditions, ideals of urban identity, citizenship and belonging—already threatened by the spreading malaise of a neoliberal ethic—become much harder to sustain. Privatized redistribution through criminal activity threatens individual security at every turn, prompting popular demands for police suppression. Even the idea that the city might function as a collective body politic, a site within and from which progressive social movements might emanate, appears implausible. There are, however, urban social movements seeking to overcome isolation and reshape the city in a different image from that put forward by the developers, who are backed by finance, corporate capital and an increasingly entrepreneurially minded local state apparatus.
Champion Briefs 340 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Consistently, urban developments are just used to absorb capitalist surplus value radically transforming lifestyles, ensuring global capitalism's stability.
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
Fast forward now to the 1940s in the United States. The huge mobilization for the war effort temporarily resolved the capital-surplus disposal problem that had seemed so intractable in the 1930s, and the unemployment that went with it. But everyone was fearful about what would happen after the war. Politically the situation was dangerous: the federal government was in effect running a nationalized economy, and was in alliance with the Communist Soviet Union, while strong social movements with socialist inclinations had emerged in the 1930s. As in Louis Bonaparte’s era, a hefty dose of political repression was evidently called for by the ruling classes of the time; the subsequent history of McCarthyism and Cold War politics, of which there were already abundant signs in the early 40s, is all too familiar. On the economic front, there remained the question of how surplus capital could be absorbed.
In 1942, a lengthy evaluation of Haussmann’s efforts appeared in Architectural Forum. It documented in detail what he had done, attempted an analysis of his mistakes but sought to recuperate his reputation as one of the greatest urbanists of all time. The article was by none other than Robert Moses, who after the Second World War did to New York what Haussmann had done to Paris. [3] That is, Moses changed the scale of thinking about the urban process. Through a system of highways and infrastructural transformations, suburbanization and the total re- engineering of not just the city but also the whole metropolitan region, he helped resolve the capital-surplus absorption problem. To do this, he tapped into new financial institutions and tax arrangements that liberated the credit to debt-finance urban expansion. When taken nationwide to all the major metropolitan centres of the US—yet another transformation of scale—this process played a crucial role in stabilizing global capitalism after 1945, a period in which the US could afford to power the whole global non-communist economy by running trade deficits.
The suburbanization of the United States was not merely a matter of new infrastructures. As in Second Empire Paris, it entailed a radical transformation in lifestyles, bringing new products from housing to refrigerators and air conditioners, as well as two cars in the driveway and an enormous increase in the consumption of oil. It also altered the political landscape, as subsidized home- ownership for the middle classes changed the focus of community action towards the defence of property values and individualized identities, turning the suburban vote towards conservative republicanism. Debt-encumbered homeowners, it was argued, were less likely to go on strike. This project successfully absorbed the surplus and assured social stability, albeit at the cost of hollowing out the inner cities and generating urban unrest amongst those, chiefly African-Americans, who were denied access to the new prosperity.
Champion Briefs 341 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Harvey, David. "The Right To The City." New Left Review 53. September 01, 2008. Web. February 06, 2017.
By the end of the 1960s, a different kind of crisis began to unfold; Moses, like Haussmann, fell from grace, and his solutions came to be seen as inappropriate and unacceptable. Traditionalists rallied around Jane Jacobs and sought to counter the brutal modernism of Moses’s projects with a localized neighbourhood aesthetic. But the suburbs had been built, and the radical change in lifestyle that this betokened had many social consequences, leading feminists, for example, to proclaim the suburb as the locus of all their primary discontents. If Haussmannization had a part in the dynamics of the Paris Commune, the soulless qualities of suburban living also played a critical role in the dramatic events of 1968 in the US. Discontented white middle-class students went into a phase of revolt, sought alliances with marginalized groups claiming civil rights and rallied against American imperialism to create a movement to build another kind of world— including a different kind of urban experience.
Champion Briefs 342 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Right to City is competitive with Right to Housing.
Marcuse , Peter. "From Critical Urban Theory To The Right To The City." City Vol. 13 , Iss. 2- 3. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
The right to the city is a claim and a banner under which to mobilize one side in the conflict over who should have the benefit of the city and what kind of city it should be. It is a moral claim, founded on fundamental principles of justice, of ethics, of morality, of virtue, of the good. ‘Right’ is not meant as a legal claim enforceable through a judicial process today (although that may be part of the claim as a step in the direction of realizing the Right to the City). Rather, it is multiple rights that are incorporated here: not just one, not just a right to public space, or a right to information and transparency in government, or a right to access to the center, or a right to this service or that, but the right to a totality, a complexity, in which each of the parts is part of a single whole to which the right is demanded. The homeless person in Los Angeles has not won the right to the city when he is allowed to sleep on a park bench in the center. Much more is involved, and the concept is as to a collectivity of rights, not individualistic rights.The demand is made as a right not only in a legal sense but also in a moral sense, a claim not only to a right as to justice within the existing legal system but a right on a higher moral plane that claims a better system in which the demands can be fully and entirely met.
Champion Briefs 343 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
We must begin with a wholesale rejection of capitalism- the limits and contradictions of cap have been exposed in the housing market. A call for the right to the city displaces the profit motive for capitalism.
Marcuse , Peter. "From Critical Urban Theory To The Right To The City." City Vol. 13 , Iss. 2- 3. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
If this is the strategy for action using critical urban theory and practice, what exactly is its ultimate goal? So a comment or two on just what exactly is the vision of the society towards which pursuing the Right to the City implicitly reads.
Most immediately, the goal can be read from the main immediate contribution of the Right to the City: the claim is a claim to a totality, to something whole and something wholly different from the existing city, the existing society. Lefebvre and most of those on the streets of Paris and in the occupied buildings of Columbia in 1968 might call it socialism or communism, but it has various names: a democratic society (Purcell, 2008Purcell, M. 2008. Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures, New York: Routledge.), or a society supporting strivings for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as in the US Declaration of Independence, or for liberty, equality, fraternity, as in the French Revolution, or a just society (Fainstein, 2009Fainstein, S. 2009. “‘Planning and the just city’”. In Searching for the Just City, Edited by: Marcuse, P., Connolly, J., Novy, J., Olivo, I., Potter, C. and Steil, J. 19– 39. Oxford: Routledge.) or a humane one or one allowing for the full development of the human capabilities (Nussbaum, 1999Nussbaum, M.C. 1999. Sex and Social Justice, New York: Oxford University Press.; also developed by Fainstein, 2009Fainstein, S. 2009. “‘Planning and the just city’”. In Searching for the Just City, Edited by: Marcuse, P., Connolly, J., Novy, J., Olivo, I., Potter, C. and Steil, J. 19– 39. Oxford: Routledge.), the potential of humans as a species being (Marx, 1844Marx, K. 1844. Economic and Political Manuscripts, Moscow: Progress.). What all of these formulations must imply, if the analysis of critical urban theory is correct, is a fundamental rejection of the prevailing capitalist system. What all but the most old-fashioned utopian proposals also have in common is a rejection of the idea that the most desirable future can be spelled out, designed, defined, now, in advance, except in the most broad principles. Only in the experience of getting there, in the democratic decisions that accompany the process, can a better future be formed. It is not for lack of imagination or inadequate attention or failing thought that no more concrete picture is presented, but because, precisely, the direction for actions in the future should not be preempted, but left to the democratic experience of those in fact implementing the vision.
Champion Briefs 344 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Marcuse , Peter. "From Critical Urban Theory To The Right To The City." City Vol. 13 , Iss. 2- 3. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
Can an alternative to capitalism really be accomplished, given the proven power of the established system? 7 7 For a recent honest, thoughtful, approach to an answer, see Ehrenreich and Fletcher (2009Ehrenreich, B. and Fletcher, B.2009. ‘Can we still use the “S” word?’. The Nation,).View all notesNot only is the end product hard to imagine, but the steps leading there are hard to see; anything now on the agenda seems trivial in such a long-term perspective. Many believe that spaces of hope, in David Harvey’s formulation (2000Harvey, D. 2000. Spaces of Hope, Berkeley: University of California Press.), can be found, and many such spaces indeed move in the direction of broader change. There is perhaps general agreement, by Marx, Lefebvre, my father, Harvey and most thinking people, that the seeds of the future must be found in the present. But what does that, apart from the spatial conceptualization, exactly mean?
A spatial image for the seeds of the future can be helpful (Pinder, 2005Pinder, D. 2005. Visions of the City: Utopianism, Power and Politics in Twentieth-Century Urbanism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. and New York: Routledge; Miles, 2007) and whatever is done will surely have a spatial aspect also. 8 8 See the forthcoming publication of the proceedings of the Nanterre conference on Spatial Justice, and the journal that developed from it.View all notesBut a spatial focus has its dangers too: most problems have a spatial aspect, but their origins lie in economic, social, political arenas, the spatial being a partial cause and an aggravation, but only partial. It might be better to see the seeds of the future as sectors. It is clearly possible to have sectors of everyday life that are free of capitalist forms, operating within the capitalist system but not of it, not dominated by it. For shorthand, those are the sectors of the economy and of daily life that are not operated on the profit system, that are within it but not of it, that are not motivated by profit but rely on solidarity, humanity, the flexing of muscles and the development of creative impulses, for their own sake. They will need to draw resources from the for-profit sector, preferably democratically and openly through government, but their own driving force will be found in general principles that are radically different from those motivating the for-profit economy, and principles that can have increasingly wider visibility and appeal.
Such sectors, such areas of activity, already exist, are well known, are sought after. The aspirations of those who are alienated from capitalism lead in this direction. Artists create, teachers teach, inventors invent, philosophers think, young people volunteer, not for profit, but because they believe that is what life is for, that is what they want to do. They come up against the same constraints that make people homeless, hungry, sick, impoverished, people whose demands thus naturally link with the aspirations of the alienated. The ultimate goal of most social movements, and certainly of the Right to the City movement, necessarily leads in this direction: they are not after profit, but seek a decent and supportive living environment. Profit, if a concern at all, is a means to an end, which is not high consumption, social status or further accumulation, but rather decent living conditions for all. Thus the culturally alienated and the immediately deprived have a common enemy. And that is increasingly recognized, even if its name is not always the same: capitalism, neoliberalism, greed, multi-nationals, power elite, the bourgeoisie,
Champion Briefs 345 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Marcuse , Peter. "From Critical Urban Theory To The Right To The City." City Vol. 13 , Iss. 2- 3. September 02, 2010. Web. February 06, 2017.
The logic of attempting to expel that enemy from everyday life, one sector at a time, is appealing. We are moving in that direction, although the present leadership is only being dragged there reluctantly, in health care and in education, two sectors in which the conflict over private vs. public has turned, if only slightly, in favor of public. The opportunity is there in housing. The economic crisis has certainly expanded the government’s role in finance, banking, real estate, if always within conservative ideological limits.
A critical urban theory, dedicated to supporting a right to the city, needs to expose the common roots of the deprivation and discontent, and to show the common nature of the demands and the aspirations of the majority of the people. A critical urban theory can develop the principles around which the deprived and the alienated can make common cause in pursuit of the Right to the City. How to politicize most effectively that common ground? We already have sectors of society where the commonality is visible, where action for people, not for profit, is the rule. Think of (unfortunately only some) education. Think of (unfortunately only some) health care. Think of (unfortunately only some) of the arts. Think of space exploration. Think of the environmental movement. Think of the non-profit and cooperative sector in housing. Think of the effort to deepen democracy and expand participation in public decisions, and limit or abolish the role of money in elections and governmental decisions. In each of these, the slogan of Cities for People, not for Profit, resonates. Let that be the political cry that embodies the nature of the city to which the right is being claimed. Let it be the cry that forms a noose about one part of the capitalist system after another. Rudi Dutschke, at the peak of the 1968 movement in Germany, spoke of the ‘long march through the institutions’. Let us pick them off, separately or together. Let us tighten the noose around the housing system, and move to squeeze the profit out of it, one sector at a time. The subprime mortgage crisis, for example, could be an opportunity to move again in that direction (Marcuse, forthcoming), as social housing was before it. Let us not be afraid to name the common goal, and the common enemy.
A critical urban theory, internally linked to practice, might help get there.
Champion Briefs 346 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
More competition: Right to city is an anti-state and capital approach that shifts control to actual urban inhabitants- it is ground up opposed to top down approach of the aff.
Purcell, Mark. "Lefebvre: The Right To The City And Its Urban Politics Of The Inhabitant." GeoJournal, Vol. 58, No. 2/3, Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City pp. 99. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Lefebvre's notion of the right to the city is at once com-plex and fluid. What I offer is not so much a meticulous restatement of Lefebvre's arguments as it is an extrapolation of those arguments. I offer a set of principles that grow out of a close reading of Lefebvre's writing. In doing so, I draw primarily on three of Lefebvre's works, The right to the city, Space and politics, and The production of space (Lefebvre, 1968, 1973, 1991, 1996)3. I suggest that Lefebvre's right to the city is an argument for profoundly reworking both the social relations of capitalism and the current structure of liberal-democratic citizenship. His right to the city is not a suggestion for reform, nor does it envision a fragmented, tactical, or piecemeal resistance. His idea is instead a call for a radical restructuring of social, political, and economic rela-tions, both in the city and beyond. Key to this radical nature is that the right to the city reframes the arena of decision- making in cities: it reorients decision-making away from the state and toward the production of urban space. Instead of democratic deliberation being limited to just state decisions, Lefebvre imagines it to apply to all decisions that contrib-ute to the production of urban space. The right to the city stresses the need to restructure the power relations that un-derlie the production of urban space, fundamentally shifting control away from capital and the state and toward urban inhabitants.
Champion Briefs 347 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Right to the city shifts the question of enfranchisement from national citizenship to urban dwellers breaking away from liberal models of citizenship.
Purcell, Mark. "Lefebvre: The Right To The City And Its Urban Politics Of The Inhabitant." GeoJournal, Vol. 58, No. 2/3, Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City pp. 99. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
This stress on the production of urban space separ-ates the right to the city clearly from present forms of enfranchisement in liberal democracies. Present forms of en-franchisement revolve predominantly around the structures, policies, and decisions of the formal state. Liberal- demo- cratic citizens (whose formal citizenship status is based on their nationality) have an institutionalized voice in the de-cisions of the state, and they therefore have some indirect control over any social process the state can influence. By contrast, the right to the city enfranchises people with re-spect to all decisions that produce urban space. That simple change radically expands the scope of enfranchisement bey-ond the state structure. Many of the decisions that produce urban space are made within the state, but many more of them are made outside it. The investment decisions of firms, for example, would fall within the purview of the right to the city because such decisions play a critical role in produ-cing urban space. Conventional enfranchisement does give citizens some influence over the decisions made by capital, but that control is diffuse and partial since the state can only influence the context in which capital is invested (through tax policy, labor law, environmental restrictions, etc.); it can't control such decisions directly. The right to the city, conversely, would give urban inhabitants a literal seat at the corporate table, because it gives them a direct voice in any decision that contributes to the production of urban space. It would transcend the state-bound limitations of current structures of conventional citizen enfranchisement. It is important to be clear about exactly who is en- franchised under the right to the city. Presently, formal enfranchisement is largely based on national citizenship. Those who are national citizens are eligible to participate in various aspects state decision-making. In Lefebvre's con-ception, however, enfranchisement is for those who inhabit the city. Because the right to the city revolves around the production of urban space, it is those who live in the city — who contribute to the body of urban lived experience and lived space — who can legitimately claim the right to the city. The right to the city is designed to further the interests 'of the whole society and firstly of all those who inhabit' (Lefe-bvre, 1996, p. 158). Whereas conventional enfranchisement empowers national citizens, the right to the city empowers urban inhabitants. Under the right to the city, membership in the community of enfranchised people is not an accident of nationality or ethnicity or birth; rather it is earned by living out the routines of everyday life in the space of the city. Be-cause throughout the twentieth century the term 'citizenship' has been hegemonically associated with membership in a national political community, those who have a right to the city are perhaps better termed what Lefebvre calls citadins instead of citizens. In using that term, Lefebvre fuses the notion of citizen with that of denizen/inhabitant. He argues that the right to the city should modify, concretize and make more practical the rights of the citizen as an urban dweller (citadin) and user of multiple services.
Champion Briefs 348 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Purcell, Mark. "Lefebvre: The Right To The City And Its Urban Politics Of The Inhabitant." GeoJournal, Vol. 58, No. 2/3, Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City pp. 99. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
It would affirm, on the one hand, the right of users to make known their ideas on the space and time of their activities in the urban area; it would also cover the right to the use of the center; a privileged place, instead of being dispersed and stuck into ghettos (for workers, immigrants, the 'marginal' and even for the 'privileged') (1991 ft 2342, translated in Kofman and Lebas, 1996, p. 34). The right to the city involves two principal rights for urban inhabitants: the right to participation, and the right to appro-priation. The right to participation maintains that citadins should play a central role in any decision that contributes to the production of urban space. The decision could be under the auspices of the state (such as a policy decision), of capital (an investment/disinvestment decision), a multilateral insti-tution (a WTO trade ruling), or any other entity that affects the production of space in a particular city. Moreover, the decision could be made at a range of scales. It could involve any level of the state (national, provincial, local), or corpor-ations that operate at any scale (global, national, local). For example, citadins who have a right to Seattle would have the right to participate centrally in an investment decision of a corporation like Boeing (now headquartered in Chicago) that would affect urban space in Seattle. Lefebvre is clear that the decision-making role of citadins must be central, but he is not explicit about what that centrality would mean. Lefebvre does not clearly say that decisions that produce urban space should be made entirely by inhabitants. But it is clear that the role inhabitants play must be central and direct. Unlike the indirect nature of liberal-democratic enfranchisement in which the voice of citizens is filtered through the institutions of the state, the right to the city would see inhabitants con-tribute directly to all decisions that produce urban space in their city.
Champion Briefs 349 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Right to the city shifts the question of enfranchisement from national citizenship to urban dwellers breaking away from liberal models of citizenship.
Purcell, Mark. "Lefebvre: The Right To The City And Its Urban Politics Of The Inhabitant." GeoJournal, Vol. 58, No. 2/3, Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City pp. 99. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
This stress on the production of urban space separ-ates the right to the city clearly from present forms of enfranchisement in liberal democracies. Present forms of en-franchisement revolve predominantly around the structures, policies, and decisions of the formal state. Liberal- demo- cratic citizens (whose formal citizenship status is based on their nationality) have an institutionalized voice in the de-cisions of the state, and they therefore have some indirect control over any social process the state can influence. By contrast, the right to the city enfranchises people with re-spect to all decisions that produce urban space. That simple change radically expands the scope of enfranchisement bey-ond the state structure. Many of the decisions that produce urban space are made within the state, but many more of them are made outside it. The investment decisions of firms, for example, would fall within the purview of the right to the city because such decisions play a critical role in produ-cing urban space. Conventional enfranchisement does give citizens some influence over the decisions made by capital, but that control is diffuse and partial since the state can only influence the context in which capital is invested (through tax policy, labor law, environmental restrictions, etc.); it can't control such decisions directly. The right to the city, conversely, would give urban inhabitants a literal seat at the corporate table, because it gives them a direct voice in any decision that contributes to the production of urban space. It would transcend the state-bound limitations of current structures of conventional citizen enfranchisement. It is important to be clear about exactly who is en- franchised under the right to the city. Presently, formal enfranchisement is largely based on national citizenship. Those who are national citizens are eligible to participate in various aspects state decision-making. In Lefebvre's con-ception, however, enfranchisement is for those who inhabit the city. Because the right to the city revolves around the production of urban space, it is those who live in the city — who contribute to the body of urban lived experience and lived space — who can legitimately claim the right to the city. The right to the city is designed to further the interests 'of the whole society and firstly of all those who inhabit' (Lefe-bvre, 1996, p. 158). Whereas conventional enfranchisement empowers national citizens, the right to the city empowers urban inhabitants. Under the right to the city, membership in the community of enfranchised people is not an accident of nationality or ethnicity or birth; rather it is earned by living out the routines of everyday life in the space of the city. Be-cause throughout the twentieth century the term 'citizenship' has been hegemonically associated with membership in a national political community, those who have a right to the city are perhaps better termed what Lefebvre calls citadins instead of citizens. In using that term, Lefebvre fuses the notion of citizen with that of denizen/inhabitant. He argues that the right to the city should modify, concretize and make more practical the rights of the citizen as an urban dweller (citadin) and user of multiple services.
Champion Briefs 350 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Purcell, Mark. "Lefebvre: The Right To The City And Its Urban Politics Of The Inhabitant." GeoJournal, Vol. 58, No. 2/3, Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City pp. 99. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
It would affirm, on the one hand, the right of users to make known their ideas on the space and time of their activities in the urban area; it would also cover the right to the use of the center; a privileged place, instead of being dispersed and stuck into ghettos (for workers, immigrants, the 'marginal' and even for the 'privileged') (1991 ft 2342, translated in Kofman and Lebas, 1996, p. 34). The right to the city involves two principal rights for urban inhabitants: the right to participation, and the right to appro-priation. The right to participation maintains that citadins should play a central role in any decision that contributes to the production of urban space. The decision could be under the auspices of the state (such as a policy decision), of capital (an investment/disinvestment decision), a multilateral insti-tution (a WTO trade ruling), or any other entity that affects the production of space in a particular city. Moreover, the decision could be made at a range of scales. It could involve any level of the state (national, provincial, local), or corpor-ations that operate at any scale (global, national, local). For example, citadins who have a right to Seattle would have the right to participate centrally in an investment decision of a corporation like Boeing (now headquartered in Chicago) that would affect urban space in Seattle. Lefebvre is clear that the decision-making role of citadins must be central, but he is not explicit about what that centrality would mean. Lefebvre does not clearly say that decisions that produce urban space should be made entirely by inhabitants. But it is clear that the role inhabitants play must be central and direct. Unlike the indirect nature of liberal-democratic enfranchisement in which the voice of citizens is filtered through the institutions of the state, the right to the city would see inhabitants con-tribute directly to all decisions that produce urban space in their city.
Champion Briefs 351 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
A2 Right to city is liberatory - TURN: Right to the city creates complex overlapping that may empower already powerful groups to dictate the choices of others.
Purcell, Mark. "Lefebvre: The Right To The City And Its Urban Politics Of The Inhabitant." GeoJournal, Vol. 58, No. 2/3, Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City pp. 99. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
Because the right to the city revolves so strongly around the production of urban space, the scalar arrangement of participation it implies would be profoundly more complex, overlapping, and malleable than the current structure. Le-febvre argues that inhabitants have the right to participate centrally in the decisions that produce urban space. Those decisions operate at a range of different scales in a range of different territories. Consider, for example, a hypothet-ical decision by the Mexican government to alter land-tenure policy in the state of Oaxaca. Current enfranchisement struc-tures would allow Oaxacan citizens, and to an extent all Mexican citizens, to have some (limited) say in the decision. However, land reform in Oaxaca can strongly affect immig-ration from Oaxaca to Los Angeles (among other places) and has in the past. Such a decision would likely contribute to the production of urban space in Los Angeles by changing its population geography. Therefore, under the right to the city, inhabitants in Los Angeles would have a right to parti-cipate centrally in the Mexican government's decision. Such a right explodes the relatively neat, nested scalar hierarchy that currently characterizes democratic enfranchisement and its Westphalian assumptions. In this example, it extends the reach of Los Angeles citizens beyond the borders of Los Angeles, California, and the United States and into both Mexico City and rural Mexico. It grants Angeleno citadins a seat at the table in Oaxaca and in Mexico City. It upends the current nested hierarchy with a complicated vision of overlapping and reconfigured scales, such that these hier-archies are no longer hegemonic in structuring participation. As this example demonstrates, the right to the city implies radical transformations in the structures of political power. These transformations open up countless contingencies. It is therefore very difficult to predict whether the right to the city will lead to desirable outcomes. In the Oaxaca example, one obvious negative outcome that might result is that wealthy, white citadins in Los Angeles will work to exclude non- white, poorer Oaxacans from the city. On the other hand, in another context, inhabitants in Ciudad Juarez might use the same power toward different ends. Since they would have a say in the investment decisions of TNCs wanting to loc- ate in the city, they might use their right to participation to prevent the arrival of an American chemical company that would dump benzene into the Rio Grande, thereby resisting environmental injustice along the U.S.-Mexico boundary. It is therefore the agenda of those empowered that will determ- ine the social and spatial outcomes of the right to the city and its politics of scale.
Champion Briefs 352 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
A2 Right to City is liberatory- TURN: The issue of sub-scale decisions can further disenfranchise marginalized groups.
Purcell, Mark. "Lefebvre: The Right To The City And Its Urban Politics Of The Inhabitant." GeoJournal, Vol. 58, No. 2/3, Social Transformation, Citizenship, and the Right to the City pp. 99. February 10, 2017. Web. February 06, 2017.
In addition to such larger-scale politics, developing an urban politics of the inhabitant would also involve negoti-ating relationships at smaller scales, such as between the urban scale and its sub- scales. A central question would be whether the urban scale, once established under the right to the city, would obliterate its sub-scales such all inhabitants had entirely equal rights to participation in the processes that produce urban space. We can safely extrapolate from Lefebvre that all urban inhabitants would be entitled to par-ticipate equally on large-scale processes that affect the entire urbanized region. For example, if a very large company like Boeing were to decide to move aerospace production out of Seattle, it would greatly affect the economic geography of the entire urbanized region, and all Seattle inhabitants would clearly have a right to participate centrally in such a decision. However, it remains unclear how to cope with decisions that have more localized impacts on sub-urban scales. A mundane example would be the decision between building a mini-mall or a community center on a vacant lot in a particular neighborhood. Assuming both would be used primarily by neighborhood residents and the impacts would be borne by them as well, do those who live in the neighborhood have a greater right to participate centrally than those who live outside the neighborhood but within the city? Clearly the decision would produce urban space, and so all residents of the city have some right to participate. But would those rights be differentiated at sub-urban scales, so that neighborhood residents would have a greater say in the decision? And if so, how would the scalar impact of each is-sue and its associated rights allocation be determined? In the most negative case, if rights are differentiated at sub-urban scales, it is easy to see how wealthy neighborhoods could use their expanded authority to block low-income housing in their area and reinforce residential segregation. Other cases are less clear, such as a decision about a particular station on a region- wide commuter-rail system. Clearly the station would have specific neighborhood impacts, but the site and characteristics of the station (e.g., where it is located and if it is above-ground or below) affect the transportation geo-graphy of the entire region. In such cases, the questions of who can participate and to what degree are more complex, and they are strongly contingent on the outcome of political struggle.
Champion Briefs 353 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Right to the city best forms networks of equivalence, which is key in uniting diverse social movements against injustice- the CP solves the aff better.
Purcell, Mark. "To Inhabit Well: Counterhegemonic Movements And The Right To The City." Urban Geography Volume 34, 2013 - Issue 4. June 19, 2013. Web. February 06, 2017.
So, we can rearticulate Lefebvre's idea of a “right to urban life” as a claim to a “right to inhabit urban space well.” 7 7To my mind, this claim can be generalized to become a claim to inhabit space well. While Lefebvre emphasized the particular importance of urban places, and while he wrote about a right to the city specifically, nevertheless his concept of the urban was much more expansive, and was never limited to the concrete geography of the city or the urban scale. Moreover, in other work (on the state, the countryside, and everyday life) his political vision for radical transformation was always meant for society at large, not merely for the city.View all notesA claim to inhabit urban space well is an integrative claim, one that necessarily brings together multiple aspects of urban life. Just to take a few concrete aspects, inhabiting well would necessitate affordable, comfortable shelter; meaningful work at good wages; convenient movement around the urban environment; stimulating recreational spaces for children; public spaces to gather, interact, and demonstrate; ecologically sustainable urban development; physical safety in space, especially for women and gay men and lesbians; and affordable, high-quality food, childcare, education, and health care. None of these necessities is more significant than the others; each is bound up with the others into the complex geography of a city that actively fosters inhabitance.
It is this integrative character of inhabiting well that I think is most useful as a starting point for establishing equivalence, for drawing together diverse mobilized groups in the city. In contemporary cities, there is a wide range of activism and mobilization, but frequently that mobilization is segmented; movements for housing operate independently from those for good jobs, those for better transportation, those for ecological sustainability, or those against racial injustice. An integrative claim to inhabit urban space well has the potential to help those sectors see themselves as interdependent. Each could see itself as struggling for only one aspect of what is required to inhabit the city well. A good job is essential to inhabiting well, but it is by itself quite useless without affordable housing, childcare, and transportation, just to name a few, that make up the complex fabric of a whole urban life. As a result of this kind of integrative understanding, different movements might decide they need to build links to coordinate action so that they are better able to claim together a right to inhabit well.
However, even if a claim to inhabit well urges different movements into cooperation, it also, at the same time, insists on the autonomy of each. That autonomy stems from the radically equal relations among the movements. None of the aspects of urban life above is any more fundamental to inhabiting urban space than any of the others. Housing, jobs, transportation, freedom from violence, etc., all are equally necessary to inhabiting well. As a result, with respect
Champion Briefs 354 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Purcell, Mark. "To Inhabit Well: Counterhegemonic Movements And The Right To The City." Urban Geography Volume 34, 2013 - Issue 4. June 19, 2013. Web. February 06, 2017.
Moreover, even if the right to inhabit implies common cause among different movements, it also underlines their irreducible difference. Even if all groups inhabit the city, they do not inhabit the city in the same way. For example, even though both women and men inhabit, the question of physical safety in urban space is very different for each. Public space has a different importance for those without secure shelter than for those who have it. Ecological restoration has a different meaning for middle-class White environmentalists than for native tribes who have been decimated by appropriation and degradation of their territory by Whites. As a result, even if they construct themselves as sharing a position as “those who inhabit” the city, the particular way each group understands what it means to inhabit well can never be reduced to being identical; it is only ever equivalent, always simultaneously partly the same and partly different. The groups are always both interdependent and autonomous.
To reiterate, I don't present this way of conceiving the right to the city as a finished agenda for movements to adopt. Rather I offer it as a useful starting point from which groups can begin to construct together relations of equivalence. This process of constructing equivalence is never finished. It must be continually renewed and reworked as each group is transformed in the context of their particular struggle, and in the context of their struggles alongside others for a right to the city. It is worth remembering that constructing equivalence is not easy. It is more common for coalitions to be either too fragmented or too unified. Either coalition members remain aloof from each other and the coalition is too loose to act effectively, or fearing disorganization they become too unified, so that one particular issue or group dominates the coalition and the rest capitulate or drop out. Relations of equivalence are rare. They are a knife's edge that is tricky to walk and requires constant effort and vigilance.
Champion Briefs 355 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Networks of equivalence are uniquely key- counterhegemonic practices built off of this method of resistance create strong forces against the status quo.
Purcell, Mark. "To Inhabit Well: Counterhegemonic Movements And The Right To The City." Urban Geography Volume 34, 2013 - Issue 4. June 19, 2013. Web. February 06, 2017.
This Gramscian notion of hegemonic politics is central to the way Laclau and Mouffe understand the political relations among various groups. Establishing a wider hegemony, for Gramsci, was necessarily a process of making alliances. He argues that no one group, not even the bourgeoisie or proletariat, can assert control over society on its own (1971, 52–120). 4 4That claim might sound self-evident to us, but Gramsci was engaged in a real debate with a determinist Marxist position (e.g., Karl Kautsky), which held that the progress of capitalism would eventually proletarianize such a large majority of society that workers would not need allies to bring about a proletarian revolution.View all notesRather any particular group must form alliances with other groups. It must, in his words, “widen itself out” beyond its narrow self-interest, to incorporate an ever-larger portion of society under its leadership (2000, 382). It must progressively “propagat[e] itself throughout society,” broadening its political identity to incorporate the perspective and interests of other groups (1971, 181). That incorporation and broadening out is essential to forming what Gramsci calls a “hegemonic bloc” of allied groups that rules the wider society through a combination of coercion and consent.
But for Gramsci, alliances in hegemonic blocs are not reductive; this not a matter of one group merely absorbing another into its political program. The way he imagines a proletarian hegemony, for example, does not involve workers dissolving other elements of society (peasants, artisans, petty bourgeois, and soldiers) into a proletarian whole. Rather he urges that the interests of other groups be “welded” to those of the working class; this is a metaphor Gramsci uses often. The implication is that each element remains distinct, but it is connected firmly to the others, and through that connection, the many parts form a new whole. Gramsci's phrasing is that “two ‘similar’ forces” can be “welded into a new organism […] binding them to each other as allies” (2000, 220) and “a multiplicity of dispersed wills, with heterogeneous aims, are welded together with a single aim, on the basis of an equal and common conception of the world” (2000, 348).
Laclau and Mouffe take up this idea of “welding” together disparate interests, developing what they call a process of “articulation.” Gramsci's welding metaphor implies that each group is self- contained and integral, that it is not remade through the process of linking up with others. Laclau and Mouffe's “articulation” stresses that each social group is not a discrete thing that remains the same as it joins with others or separates from them. Rather for Laclau and Mouffe, the process of coming together to form a specifically hegemonic force involves each group being partly transformed. Each is transformed because it increasingly takes on board elements of the agenda and identity of other groups, and it comes to partly adopt the interests of others as its own. However, that does not mean that each group dissolves into a homogenous unity. Rather each group also remains distinct and partly autonomous even as it is partly remade by the process of
Champion Briefs 356 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Purcell, Mark. "To Inhabit Well: Counterhegemonic Movements And The Right To The City." Urban Geography Volume 34, 2013 - Issue 4. June 19, 2013. Web. February 06, 2017.
He is saying here that the workers must adopt, to an extent, the identity and agenda of the peasants; they must decide to see the peasants' struggle as different from and yet also embedded in their own. In doing so, workers must make some sacrifices of their narrow self-interest (what Gramsci calls “economic-corporate” interests in the quote) to incorporate the particular interests of peasants. The peasants must reciprocate, as must all groups who join the hegemonic formation. Their joining produces a new linked bloc, with an agenda distinctly different from the agenda of any one of the groups, a broader counterhegemonic agenda that seeks a transformation of existing society. Politics, in this radical pluralist imagination, is a constantly developing process of groups combining, un-combining, and recombining, being partly remade in that process, and struggling together to both undermine the existing order and establish an alternative one.
Against the background of this idea of politics, we can imagine movements and political mobilization in the following way. In the social field, a range of different political movements are simultaneously engaged in “widening themselves out” by entering into political common cause with other groups in society (Gramsci, 2000Gramsci, A. 2000. The Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916–1935, Edited by: Forgacs, D.New York, NY: NYU Press., 382). None of these movements is entirely self-contained and autonomous, rather each is partly transformed by the process of coming together with others. Each is partly transformed, but not entirely transformed, as each must also retain a measure of autonomy that prevents it from being reduced to a homogenous larger group. This process of being transformed involves each group taking on board the interests of the other groups. Each group, in part, makes the interests of the other groups its own. It is a process, in other words, of establishing relations of equivalence.
The goal in building this particular form of combination is radical political change that can destabilize the current political hegemony and build up a new counterhegemony. In order to give specific content to that counterhegemony, to develop the wider agenda of the coalition, groups must work together to forge a shared vision, a vision that allows each to understand their cooperative project in an equivalent way. They do not form a collective, unitary body with a
Champion Briefs 357 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Purcell, Mark. "To Inhabit Well: Counterhegemonic Movements And The Right To The City." Urban Geography Volume 34, 2013 - Issue 4. June 19, 2013. Web. February 06, 2017.
We could summarize this way to imagine political mobilization by saying that each group engages all the others in what I call relations of equivalence. Through conscious action, their wills become articulated with each other such that they become simultaneously the same and different; they become dependent on and autonomous from each other––unified yet distinct, obligated yet free.
Champion Briefs 358 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Gentrification is related to the governments efforts to create housing policy reform.
Newman, Kathe. "The Right To Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification And Resistance To Displacement In New York City." Urban Studies, Vol. 43. July 01, 2006. Web. February 07, 2017.
Gentrification is directly related to how cities experience economic transformation and policy interventions. The urban disinvestment produced by economic change and federal urban policy along with the individual desire for the suburban dream laid the groundwork for gentrification’s appearance. The renewed position of cities in the global economy has fuelled gentrification’s expansion. We do not consider residential displacement as a litmus test for gentrification. Neighbourhoods, especially those with considerable dis- investment and de facto forms of housing abandonment, could experience waves of gentrification for decades without extensive displacement. When we consider the negative impacts of gentrification, we can think not only of residents who are immediately dis- placed by gentrification processes but also of the impact of the restructuring of urban space on the ability of low-income residents to move into neighbourhoods that once pro- vided ample supplies of affordable living arrangements.
Champion Briefs 359 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Displacement is a result of state based gentrification, certain neighborhoods get cost driven up upon housing reform drives people to gentrified spaces.
Newman, Kathe. "The Right To Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification And Resistance To Displacement In New York City." Urban Studies, Vol. 43. July 01, 2006. Web. February 07, 2017.
Since gentrification came to attention in the 1960s, researchers and policy-makers have sought to resolve the sharp dividing line between equitable reinvestment and polaris- ing displacement. LeGates and Hartman frame the issue In the optimistic view, gentrification will not cause social conflict and will produce neighbourhoods which are an exciting mix of different races, classes and life- style groups living together. The HUD Dis- placement Report takes the position that revitalization offers a ‘unique opportunity’ for integration (US Department of Housing and Urban Development 1979). A more pessimistic view holds that gentrifi- cation will force low- income minority groups out of desirable inner-city neigh- bourhoods to less desirable areas, thus redu- cing their quality of life and diffusing and defusing their political power (LeGates and Hartman, 1986, p. 194). These questions are again at the forefront of policy debates 25 years later, although the context has changed. Forty years of experi- ence with gentrification suggests its powerful ability to revitalise communities. And in a neo-liberal policy context, gentrification appears to many as an ideal solution to long-term urban decay. The state, which in the past had been hesitant to encourage gentrification processes, has since taken a much more aggressive role by acting as a cat- alyst to encourage gentrification (Smith, 2002; Hackworth and Smith, 2001). In the UK, regeneration policy blurs the line between urban redevelopment and gentrification. As Atkinson notes Increasing demolition, affordable housing problems, housing market failure and a design-led approach to promote ‘liveabil- ity’ and recapturing middle-class house- holds appear as strategies linked to renewal but also to gentrification (Atkin- son, 2004, p. 107). Residential displacement is one of the primary dangers cited by those concerned about the exclusionary effects of market- as well as state-driven gentrification. Residents may be displaced as a result of housing demolition, ownership conversion of rental units, increased housing costs (rent, taxes), landlord harassment and evictions. Those who avoid these direct displacement pressures may benefit from neighbourhood improvements but may suffer as critical community networks and culture are displaced (Freeman and Braconi, 2004, 2002a, 2002b; Atkinson, 2000; Marcuse, 1986). Increased housing expenses associated with gentrification dis- place current residents as well as those who might have moved there in the future. Neighbourhoods become off-limits, forcing lower-income residents to look to lower-cost neighbourhoods for housing, producing what Marcuse (1986) calls exclusionary displacement.
Champion Briefs 360 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Rent control is the most influential form public intervention.
Newman, Kathe. "The Right To Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification And Resistance To Displacement In New York City." Urban Studies, Vol. 43. July 01, 2006. Web. February 07, 2017.
Of the myriad forms of assistance available, interviewees identified the city’s rent regu- lations as the single most important form of public intervention. In 2002, 49 per cent of housing units in New York City were rent- stabilised, 3 per cent were rent-controlled and another 17 per cent were regulated by some other form of regulation, leaving 32 per cent unregulated (Previti and Schill, 2003). Changes to rent regulation legislation over the past 10 years, however, have reduced the regulated housing stock by about 105 000 units city-wide, suggesting that the role of this important safeguard has diminished over time (Chen, 2003). Interviewees identified problems affecting the regulated stock in gentrifying neighbour- hoods. Landlords illegally charge excessive rents for stabilised units, send tenants threa- tening notices to leave the regulated stock, stop providing services and threaten to look at immigration papers. The Rent Regulation Act of 1997 allows landlords to increase the rent of regulated apartments by between 18 and 20 per cent upon vacancy. When the rent reaches $2000, landlords can remove the unit from the regulated housing stock. In a market with soaring market rents, and the ability to reach a rent level that enables them to decontrol units, landlords have an obvious incentive to increase rents to reach the luxury decontrol cap. In Clinton, the area in Manhattan in the west 50s, landlords are reportedly using a variety of illegal tactics to capture higher rents. In one scheme, landlords rotate tenants in rent-stabilised buildings to capture the rent increase, pushing the units more quickly towards $2,000 so that they can decontrol and capture windfall profits in what one community leader describes as “the most intensely gentrified neighbourhood, right west of Midtown” (interview with com- munity leader, 2003). For their part, tenants reportedly choose not to challenge landlords to improve housing quality or charge legal rents in rent-stabilised buildings because they are afraid that landlords will harass them. An organiser explained: They are happy that they have some sort of apartment even though the landlord is over- charging under rent stabilisation. In this one building, it was pretty clear that everyone in the building was overpaying at $1700. They were being overcharged but in their mental- ity, to have a $1700 apartment in Manhattan was great and they did not want to make waves (interview, 2003).
Champion Briefs 361 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Mixed-income housing is an extension of neoliberal urban development that relies on displacement of low-income and marginalized communities.
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda." Journal of Education Policy Vol. 23 Iss. 2. February 29, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
Viewed through the lens of neoliberal urbanism, the PFT is part of a development agenda which merges local, national, and transnational capital, in partnership with city government, to make Chicago a first-tier global city (Lipman 2004Lipman, P. 2004. High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform, New York: Routledge.[CrossRef]). The heart of that plan is downtown development, tourism, and gentrification of large sections of working-class and low-income Chicago, particularly communities of color (Demissie 2006Demissie, F. 2006. “Globalization and the city: The remaking of Chicago”. In The new Chicago: A social and cultural analysis, Edited by: Koval, J.P., Bennett, L., Bennett, M., Demissie, F. and Garner, R.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.). The city’s aggressive support for capital accumulation and corporate involvement in city decision-making extends to incentives to developers and corporate and financial interests, public–private partnerships, the city’s bid for the 2016 Olympics, cuts in funding for social welfare, control of labor, and privatization of public assets. If downtown development and gentrification are the ‘icons of the neoliberal city’ (Hackworth 2007Hackworth, J. 2007. The neoliberal city: Governance, ideology, and development in American urbanism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press., 78), Chicago epitomizes this agenda as working-class communities and public housing have been replaced by condominium developments, refurbished homes, and upscale shops and restaurants.
Although cast as a positive strategy for urban decay and the achievement of social stability, critical urbanists argue that present-day ‘third wave’ gentrification is driven by finance capital at multiple scales and is a means for the middle and upper-middle classes to claim cultural control of the city (e.g. Smith 1996Smith, N. 1996. The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city, New York: Routledge.; Fainstein 2001Fainstein, S. 2001. City builders: Property development in New York and London, 1980–2000, , 2nd ed., Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.; Hackworth 2007Hackworth, J. 2007. The neoliberal city: Governance, ideology, and development in American urbanism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.). The class and race contours of this process are, as Neil Smith points out, hidden in the language of ‘mixed income communities’ and ‘regeneration’. A global city driven by neoliberal economic and social policies simply has no room for public housing as devised in the 1950s and 1960s (Bennett 2006Bennett, L. 2006. “Downtown restructuring and public housing in contemporary Chicago: Fashioning a better world-class city”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 282– 300. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.) or for low-income African Americans who are, from the standpoint of capital, largely superfluous in the new economy and ‘threatening’ to the corporate and tourist culture. Indeed, public housing and education policies are critical components of Chicago’s bid to be a first-tier global city and to restructure its economy on neoliberal lines.
Champion Briefs 362 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
The logic underpinning mixed-income housing solutions is disciplinary, pathologizing blackness which reinforces racists structures and institutions.
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda." Journal of Education Policy Vol. 23 Iss. 2. February 29, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
The construction of poverty as social pathology is linked to the supposedly restorative and disciplining effects of the market to promote individual responsibility and initiative, self- discipline, and regeneration of decaying public institutions. According to this neoliberal logic, while public housing and public schools breed dysfunction and failure, private management, the market, and public–private partnerships foster excellence through entrepreneurship, competition, and choice. In the USA, ‘public’ and ‘private’ have become racialized signifiers, with the private associated with what is ‘good’ and ‘white’ and the public associated with what is ‘bad’ and ‘black’ (Haymes 1995Haymes, S.N. 1995. Race, culture and the city, Albany: State University of New York Press., 20). Black public spaces are constructed as pathological and in need of social control, and mixed-income schools/housing perform this function. This logic is operationalized under the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Reform Act, which institutionalises the policing of low-income tenants in new HOPE VI mixed-income developments through rigorous applicant screenings and strict work and behavior rules (Wilen and Nayak 2006Wilen, W.P. and Nayak, R.D. 2006. “Relocating public housing residents have little hope of returning: Work requirements for mixed-income public housing developments”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 239–58. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.). 5 5. Non- exempt heads of household must work a minimum of 30 hours per week and all other non- exempt family members between ages of 18 and 61 must also work 30 hours per week or be in qualified alternative activities (e.g. enrollment in education program, training, verified job search, etc.) Public housing tenants are subject to drug testing housing keeping checks, specific behaviour rules, and exclusion if there are convicted felons in the family.View all notesSimilarly, racially coded mixed-income schools with a majority of middle-class students are assumed to provide the work ethic and behavior standards necessary to transform and discipline low-income students.
In Chicago and other cities, the transformation of public housing and schools is designed without real input from the communities affected. This reflects the coercive and de-democratizing tendencies of the neoliberal state, both to streamline the process of implementing neoliberal policy without ‘interference’ from a democratic polity and to squelch potential resistance (Gill 2003Gill, S. 2003. Power and resistance in the new world order, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.[CrossRef]; Harvey 2005Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.). The plan for Ren2010 originated with the Commercial Club of Chicago (an organization of the city’s most powerful corporate, financial,
Champion Briefs 363 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda." Journal of Education Policy Vol. 23 Iss. 2. February 29, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
Data on experiences of public housing residents in Chicago show a similar pattern. Bennett, Hudspeth, and Wright (2006Bennett, L., Hudspeth, N. and Wright, P.A. 2006. “A critical analysis of the ABLA redevelopment plan”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 185– 215. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.) write in their study of the transformation of public housing in Chicago: ‘From the standpoint of the city and the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), effective dialogue with public housing residents appears to be consultation in which the residents, at the outset and throughout the process, agree to premises advanced by city and public housing agency officials’ (202). CHA resident organizations had to pry their way into participation in the PFT through demonstrations, noisy public hearings, persistent tenant organizing, law suits, and even the intervention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing (Wright 2006Wright, P. 2006. “Community resistance to CHA transformation”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 125–67. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.). The Chicago experience mirrors reports from other HOPE VI cities (e.g. Pitcoff 1999Pitcoff, W. 1999. New hope for public housing? Shelterforce online 104, March/April.http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/104/pitcoff.html). The state’s superficial solicitation of community input, its creation of appointed advisory boards, and the exclusion of parents and residents from genuine participation in decisions reflect the ‘democratic deficits’ of neoliberal regimes (Fraser forthcoming). In the case of mixed-income school and housing policy, these democratic deficits particularly disenfranchise low-income people of color who are the primary residents of public housing and are 92% of the school population.
Champion Briefs 364 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda." Journal of Education Policy Vol. 23 Iss. 2. February 29, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
At the same time, the seemingly democratic and inclusive discourse of mixed-income communities and schools masks the nexus of racialized public policy and investment decisions that produced deindustrialization, disinvestment, unemployment, and degradation of public health, the built environment, and education in inner-city neighborhoods and schools over the past 30 years. Our interviews with teachers and administrators in Chicago’s African-American Midsouth area produced a narrative of declining resources and lack of support from district officials that exacerbated problems in schools in disinvested communities (Lipman, Person, and KOCO 2007Lipman, P., Person, A. and and Kenwood Oakland Community Organisation (KOCO). 2007. Students as collateral damage? A preliminary study of Renaissance 2010 school closings in the MidsouthChicago Kenwood Oakland Community Organisation andhttp://www.uic.edu/educ/ceje/index.html). Once devalued, schools are identified as failing, closed without community input (Lipman and Haines 2007Lipman, P. and Haines, N. 2007. From education accountability to privatization and African American exclusion – Chicago public schools’ “Renaissance 2010”. Educational Policy, 21(3): 471–502.[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]; Lipman, Person, and KOCO 2007Lipman, P., Person, A. and and Kenwood Oakland Community Organisation (KOCO). 2007. Students as collateral damage? A preliminary study of Renaissance 2010 school closings in the MidsouthChicago Kenwood Oakland Community Organisation andhttp://www.uic.edu/educ/ceje/index.html), and reopened and rebranded with distinctions that mark them as middle class (e.g. Montessori schools) and that appeal to whites even when initial ‘gentrifiers’ are African American, as in the Midsouth (Boyd 2005Boyd, M. 2005. The downside of racial uplift: The meaning of gentrification in an African American neighborhood. City & Society, 17(2): 265–288.[CrossRef]). This process is facilitated by an urban mythology ‘that has identified Blacks with disorder and danger in the city’ (Haymes 1995Haymes, S.N. 1995. Race, culture and the city, Albany: State University of New York Press.) and African-American schools with discourses of violence and dysfunction. In this process Black urban communities are viewed simply as sites of capital accumulation (investment and real estate development), emptied of their meanings as spaces of identity, solidarity, cultural and political resistance, and material survival (Haymes 1995Haymes, S.N. 1995. Race, culture and the city, Albany: State University of New York Press.). Not only does displacement disrupt the material places in which people live, learn, and work, but also what Fullilove (2005Fullilove, M.T. 2005. Root shock: How tearing up city neighbourhoods hurts America, and what we can do about it, New York: One World Books.) calls a human ecosystem, ‘a web of connections – a way of being’ (4). This is what is at stake when families, students, and teachers are uprooted and relocated to communities and schools not of their own choosing. The cavalier attitude of policy makers who presume to know what is best for communities of color is illustrated by Alexander Polikoff, senior staff council of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, a policy group backing mixed-income development in Chicago: ‘… so persuaded am I of the life-blighting consequences of [William Julius] Wilson’s concentrated poverty circumstances, that I do not view even homelessness as clearly a greater evil’ (quoted in Wright 2006Wright, P. 2006. “Community resistance to CHA transformation”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 125–67. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe., 159– 60).
Champion Briefs 365 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Mixed-income housing developments decrease access to housing and decreased education quality.
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda." Journal of Education Policy Vol. 23 Iss. 2. February 29, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
The discourse of opportunity to move to better performing new mixed-income schools conceals the reality of displacement and exclusion in Chicago and elsewhere. Plans to link mixed-income housing and schools make it clear that guaranteeing middle-class families slots in mixed-income magnet schools is a priority, and marketing schools to these ‘consumers’ is taken for granted (Raffel et al. 2003Raffel, J.A., Denson, L.R., Varady, D.P. and Sweeney, S. 2003. Linking housing and public schools in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program: A case study analysis of four developments in four citieshttp://www.udel.edu/ccrs/pdf/LinkingHousing.pdf). This is evident in discussions about schools in HOPE VI reports (Varady and Raffel 1995Varady, D.P. and Raffel, J.A. 1995. Selling cities: Attracting homebuyers through schools and housing programs, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.; Raffel et al. 2003Raffel, J.A., Denson, L.R., Varady, D.P. and Sweeney, S. 2003. Linking housing and public schools in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program: A case study analysis of four developments in four citieshttp://www.udel.edu/ccrs/pdf/LinkingHousing.pdf). In Chicago, most displaced public housing students have been relocated to schools academically and demographically similar to those they left, with 84% attending schools with below the average district test scores and 44% in schools on probation for low test scores (Catalyst Chicago 2007Catalyst Chicago. February 2007. Special report: School autonomy all over the map February,http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/news/index.php?item=2141andcat=23). In the Midsouth area, most low-income students are attending neighborhood schools that are overwhelmingly low-income while two schools that were closed and have been reopened as new Ren2010 schools have significantly fewer low-income students than the original schools. Concerns about mixed-income schools as a tool of permanent displacement are a central theme in my field notes from community meetings, public hearings, press conferences, and rallies opposing Ren2010 across the city (see also Nyden, Edlynn, and Davis 2006Nyden, P., Edlynn, E. and Davis, J.2006. The differential impact of gentrification on communities in Chicago, Chicago: Loyola University Chicago Center for Urban Research and Learning.). Research on HOPE VI developments elsewhere suggests these fears may be well founded as original residents’ children are not attending the new schools because of displacement (Raffel et al. 2003Raffel, J.A., Denson, L.R., Varady, D.P. and Sweeney, S. 2003. Linking housing and public schools in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program: A case study analysis of four developments in four citieshttp://www.udel.edu/ccrs/pdf/LinkingHousing.pdf; Varady et al. 2005Varady, D., Raffel, J.A., Sweeney, S. and Denson, L. 2005. Attracting middle-income families in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(2): 149–64.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]).
Champion Briefs 366 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda." Journal of Education Policy Vol. 23 Iss. 2. February 29, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
While HOPE VI has transformed some public housing units into more attractive buildings and communities and improved living conditions for some public housing residents, many original residents have not benefited (Popkin et al. 2004Popkin, S.J., Katz, B., Cunningham, M., Brown, K., Gustafson, J. and Turner, M. 2004. A decade of HOPE VI: Research findings and policy challenges, Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.; Venkatesh et al. 2004Venkatesh, S.A., Celimli, I., Miller, D., Murphy, A. and Turner, B. 2004. Chicago public housing transformation: A research report, New York: Center for Urban Research and Policy, Columbia University.). Most significantly, elimination of the one-to-one replacement requirement means many displaced residents do not have access to new mixed-income housing in HOPE VI developments (Pitcoff 1999Pitcoff, W. 1999. New hope for public housing? Shelterforce online 104, March/April.http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/104/pitcoff.html; Raffel et al. 2003Raffel, J.A., Denson, L.R., Varady, D.P. and Sweeney, S. 2003. Linking housing and public schools in the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program: A case study analysis of four developments in four citieshttp://www.udel.edu/ccrs/pdf/LinkingHousing.pdf). In Chicago, demolition has far outpaced replacement construction, and Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) officials admit they do not have funding to replace all public housing units (Sharon Gilliam, CEO of CHA, Gateaux at 40 Forum, field notes, 3 March 2006). About 19,000 units of public housing were demolished, but in the first six years of the PFT (up to September 2005), only 766 public housing units were constructed or rehabilitated in mixed-income communities (Wilen and Nayak, 2006Wilen, W.P. and Nayak, R.D. 2006. “Relocating public housing residents have little hope of returning: Work requirements for mixed-income public housing developments”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 239–58. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe., 219), and the CHA’s 2006 annual report lists only an additional 304 for that year (Chicago Housing Authority 2006Chicago Housing Authority. 2006. FY2006 annual report.http://www.thecha.org/transformplan/reports.html).
This outcome is driven by the interwoven logics of capital and race – the inexorable drive to maximize returns on real estate investments and the ‘pathologizing’ of African-American public housing residents. In the 1990s, private developers exerted pressure to change the formula from one-to-one replacement to a ‘tipping point’ of one-third public housing residents. They claimed a larger percentage would drive away market-rate and affordable housing buyers (Bennett, Hudspeth, and Wright 2006Bennett, L., Hudspeth, N. and Wright, P.A. 2006. “A critical analysis of the ABLA redevelopment plan”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 185–215. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.). Renée Glover, CEO, Atlanta Housing Authority (Glover 2005Glover, R.L. 2005. Making a case for mixed-use, mixed-income communities to address America’s affordable housing needs Renée Lewis Glover presentation by Chief
Champion Briefs 367 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Lipman, Pauline. "Mixed-income Schools And Housing: Advancing The Neoliberal Urban Agenda." Journal of Education Policy Vol. 23 Iss. 2. February 29, 2008. Web. February 07, 2017.
Executive Officer, Atlanta Housing Authority to Center for American Progress, October 12.http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/glover.pdf) said, with competition to attract market rate renters the priority, ‘the long-term success of mixed-income communities must be driven by the same market factors that drive the success of every other real estate development’ – in this case that means the principle of keeping public housing residents below 40%. Chicago’s developments follow the formula one-third public housing, one-third affordable, and one-third market rate units. Janet Smith (2006Smith, J.L. 2006. “Mixed-income communities: Designing out poverty or pushing out the poor?”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 282–300. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.) concludes, ‘We can expect poverty to go down in some of these new mixed- income communities but not necessarily because poor people have escaped poverty – rather because poor people have been moved out and replaced by higher income families’ (277). Public housing residents are mainly relocating to racially segregated, low-income communities, out of the city altogether, or they are going homeless (Bennett, Hudspeth, and Wright 2006Bennett, L., Hudspeth, N. and Wright, P.A. 2006. “A critical analysis of the ABLA redevelopment plan”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.L. and Wright, P.A. 185–215. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.). An official report on CHA relocation in 2003 stated that ‘vertical ghettos from which the families are being removed are being replaced with horizontal ghettos, located in well- defined, highly segregated neighbourhoods on the west and south sides of Chicago’ (Bennett, Smith and Wright 2006bBennett, L., Smith, J.A. and Wright, P.A. 2006b. “Epilogue”. In Where are poor people to live? Transforming public housing communities, Edited by: Bennett, L., Smith, J.A. and Wright, P.A. 301–14. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe., 307). Thus, displacement and relocation due to the PFT maintains racial containment and exclusion despite a discourse of mixed-income development.
Champion Briefs 368 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
The focus on the house enforces neoliberal conceptions that bases worth on home ownership.
Wyly, Elvin K. "Why (Not A Right To) Housing?" Housing Policy Debate. February 10, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
At the same time, neoliberalization encourages families who would like to live their lives as fully social beings to instead approach every situation as a utility-maximizing entrepreneur and investor (Harvey, 2005). This is the “cold ‘ownership society’” (N. Smith, 2011)1 that pushes working-class and middle-class households to struggle into homeownership while borrowing to the limit to buy as much real estate as possible. After 30 years of stagnant or declining wages, disappearing pensions, privatization, outsourcing, and assaults on unions and every other remaining institution of job security, how else could an American family keep from falling ever further behind? Wall Street, Washington, and legions of realtors, bankers, and brokers aggressively pushed housing as the means of building assets and home equity—touting its winning record (at the national, aggregate scale) all the way back to Great Depression 1.0.
Champion Briefs 369 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Capitalistic analysis of housing struggles shows deep the intersection with race.
Wyly, Elvin K. "Why (Not A Right To) Housing?" Housing Policy Debate. February 10, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
All of these processes involve class, even as people’s class positions interrelate with their identities as people or corporations, singles or families, non-Hispanic White native- born citizens versus African Americans or Latino immigrants and undocumented workers, and so on. Levitin and Wachter’s analysis helps us see the detailed legal, institutional, and economic mechanisms used to reconcile the necessary structural relations of housing class and finance capital with the contingent positions and subjective, situated experiences of people living their lives in a ruthlessly competitive and insecure world of “cannabalistic capitalism” (Soederberg, 2010). Geography also matters because housing is such a dominant, broad-based sector where the contradictions of uneven development (N. Smith, 2008) are worked out through day-to-day economic activity across the urban landscape. A generation ago, we could see the comparative simplicity of the spatial imprint of asymmetric-information credit rationing processes (Stiglitz & Weiss, 1981) that created stark contrasts between (a) credit-starved inner-city landscapes of race and class marginalization and (b) credit-rich suburban landscapes of White privilege, class exclusion, and publicly subsidized upward mobility. But over the years, spatial reorganization became more central to economic exploitation and legal evasion, as the financial services sector built the infrastructure portrayed so meticulously in “Why Housing?” And so there are more complex—and often seemingly contradictory— spatialities. There is a lot more complexity in the legal and institutional connections between class power and class struggle mediated through Wall Street and Washington, on the one hand, and all sorts of other landscapes of extraction and leverage—the declining inner cities and slow-growth suburbs across deindustrialized Rustbelt cities, as well as the sprawling Sunbelt suburbs for the upwardly mobile and the upwardly hopeful (Ashton, 2011; Schafran & Wegmann, 2012). The “peripheralization” of the “structural conditions of neoliberalism” as it has advanced in recent years is in contrast to the “federally supported suburbanization of two generations ago” (Schafran & Wegmann, 2012, p. 630).
Champion Briefs 370 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Housing bubble burst was the epitome of class based stratification.
Wyly, Elvin K. "Why (Not A Right To) Housing?" Housing Policy Debate. February 10, 2017. Web. February 07, 2017.
The Great American housing bubble was a bubble of class-monopoly rent. Why housing? Housing offered a vast landscape of noncommodified use values that had not yet been fully strip- mined and fully capitalized for the accumulation of asset-backed fictitious capital (Harvey, 1982). Deregulation and a steady rightward drift of the policy equilibrium of Washington, DC, gradually eroded the foundations of the New Deal financial architecture and protective covering of rules, norms, and regulations. The results are now clear: Sophisticated, innovative theories of efficient markets, risk-based pricing, and counterparty surveillance gave us NINJA loans (“No Income, No Jobs or Assets”), trillions of credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and the even more dangerous and CDO-squared, the shell-company legal-liability- laundering deceptions of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), the speedy automated efficiencies of the robo- signing scandal, well-documented cases of lenders foreclosing on nonexistent debts, and now the prospect of bailed-out banks “forgiving debts that no longer exist” and saddling consumers denied mortgage workouts with potential tax liabilities (Morgenson, 2012, p. BU1).
Champion Briefs 371 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Investigating the relationship of the "right to housing" to the present juridical order is a prior question.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
This chapter has attempted to summarise the complexity of the concept of rights within the homelessness field. It has sought to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible to object to natural and/or human rights, on either philosophical or pragmatic grounds or both, but be in favour of clearly delimited legal rights to housing for homeless people. Conversely, one may be in sympathy with the discourse of moral rights, but be sceptical with respect to the ‘juridification’ and atomisation associated with individually enforceable legal rights. If one is promoting a rights-based approach to tackling homelessness, then it is necessary to be clear about the scope and nature of the sort of rights-based approach one is taking, as all approaches have distinctive limitations and strengths.
Champion Briefs 372 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
Rights can do harm, as well as good. Critical interrogation of rights discourse is essential to a democratic politics.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
One overarching point to emphasise in drawing this chapter to a close is that, while the notion of rights as ‘absolute’ and ‘trumps’ can tend to close down debate, we contend that it is at least as important to maintain a critical perspective on rights discourses as it is on any other discourse in the social policy and housing fields. In particular, one must avoid the assumption that rights are a taken-for-granted good, or that, even if they do not do much good, at least they can do no harm. On the contrary, social rights that are enforceable by courts, especially those that are abstract and open-ended, can potentially undermine democratic control over public policy decisions by investing policy discretion in the hands of (unelected) judges and by limiting the room for manoeuvre of (democratically elected) governments and parliaments. Of course, in practice, it may well be the case that social rights such as the right to housing do far more good than harm when viewed from a progressive political perspective: we suspect that this is likely to be true with respect to specific, clearly articulated rights to housing for homeless people. But this is a hypothesis worthy of detailed investigation rather than an indisputable assertion calling for uncritical acceptance.
Champion Briefs 373 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
A2 Biopolitics: The affirmative is not a form of naive legalism-demanding a right to housing is essential to policy change.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
Finally, while there is always the danger of a naïve legalism that assumes that one can ‘magic away’ housing problems simply by legislating for a right to housing, one can equally argue that enforceable legal rights may be a potent force in leading positive policy change. For example, in the case of the French enforceable right to housing it has been commented that: enforceability of the right is no substitute for the measures needed to increase social welfare resources, regulate markets, or join up national and local policies. But we saw it as a necessary driver to ensure that the right to housing received real priority, and beneficial policy decisions. (Lacharme, 2008, p.23)
Champion Briefs 374 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
The right to housing contributes to the "juridification of welfare", a legalistic approach that redistributes power away from rights holders and toward elites.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
But there are counter voices. Enforceable legal rights such as a right to housing may be thought to contribute to the ‘juridification of welfare’, such that social policy becomes ‘over-legalised’, frustrating its fundamental purposes (Dean, 2002, p.157). There may also be practical limitations to legal rights-based approaches, with Goodin (1986), for example, highlighting the costs and difficulties faced by service users attempting to realise those rights. According to this view, legalistic approaches are fundamentally flawed as they place the burden of responsibility for ensuring that rights are met in the wrong place, redistributing power to those people least likely to be able to use it: In purely rights-based systems, the rights holders alone have legal standing to complain if officials fail to do their correlative duties. It seems to be sheer folly, however, to make their getting their due contingent upon their demanding it, since we know so well that (for one reason or another) a substantial number of them will in fact not do so. (Goodin, 1986, p.255)
Champion Briefs 375 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
A2 Biopolitics: The right to housing creates a counter- hierarchy of power.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
There are some obvious reasons why enforceable legal rights to housing may be viewed as a progressive step in addressing homelessness. First and foremost, they may be seen as a preferred alternative to what Goodin describes as ‘more odious forms of official discretion’ (1986, p.232). Those who administer welfare goods or services such as housing have power over claimants because they have an effective sanction against them (Spicker, 1984), and it can be argued that legal rights-based approaches create a counter-hierarchy of power by giving service users a ‘right of action’ against service providers (Kenna, 2005). Rights-based approaches can thus be viewed as a bottom-up form of regulation that permits service users a central voice in holding service providers to account.
Champion Briefs 376 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
A2 Biopootics: The right to housing is essential to a politics of recognition which overcomes the stigmatization of the homeless.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
A second and linked argument is that providing welfare benefits such as housing as a matter of discretion stigmatises recipients, whereas receiving them as a matter of right does not. When service users are beneficiaries rather than rights holders, there is an implied debt of gratitude as the beneficiary is unable to honour the powerful norm of reciprocity. As such, the giver gains status, and the receiver losesit (Spicker, 1984). Rights-based approaches, it is argued, overcome this problem of stigmatisation (Dwyer, 2004) and safeguard the self-respect of welfare recipients (Rawls, 1971) because they reflect their equal status as citizens rather than their unequal status as dependants (Spicker, 1984). Legal rights thus become a key instrument in supporting a ‘politics of recognition’ that affords dignity to those living in poverty and using welfare services such as housing (Lister, 2004).
Champion Briefs 377 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
A2 Biopolitics: Human rights discourse is necessary, despite its limitations. Simply deconstructing it, without proposing an alternative, is counter-productive.
Fitzpatrick, Suzanne. "‘The Right To Housing’ For Homeless People." Homelessness Research in Europe. January 01, 2011. Web. February 08, 2017.
In spite of these weaknesses, human rights discourses retain a key strength. As Arendt’s work shows, the concept of human rights highlights the needs and distress of ‘rightless’ people, including refugees and other displaced populations who do not benefit from the advantages of citizenship and the legal protection of a nation state (see below). Furthermore, it is irresponsible, as Isaac (2002) argues, simply to deconstruct and expose the weaknesses of the human rights discourse without proposing alternative, superior ways of pursuing social justice, or at least humanitarian goals, on a global basis (Miller, 1999). So, for all their philosophical and practical limitations, human rights may be considered a ‘useful fiction’, justified, perhaps ironically, on the consequentialist basis that they do more good than harm, especially in countries where democratic traditions and the protection of minorities remains weak or underdeveloped.
Champion Briefs 378 NEG: Racism NC March/April 2017
A2 All Ks: Permutation, do both. Creating coalitions between supporters of the right to housing and racial/economic justice movements is essential to fundamental, systemic change.
Hartman, Chester. "The Case For A Right To Housing." Housing Policy Debate--Fannie Mae Foundation. February 10, 1998. Web. February 08, 2017.
Strategic approaches How might one get there from here? Laying out a detailed plan to establish a right to decent, affordable housing is a later step. The initial step is to set forth the rationale for establishing such a right and to challenge those who disagree to assert their arguments and counterarguments. Some preliminary thoughts along these lines are, however, appropriate. Community/housing organizing and its political activism component is one major tool. There clearly is a need for more housing organizers to work with and bring together tenant groups, homeless advocacy organizations, community-based nonprofit developers, churchbased institutions, neighborhood associations, and civil rights and minority groups. ‘‘There are probably more housing lawyers for the poor than there are organizers,’’ observed John Atlas, president of the National Housing Institute (Atlas 1991). Useful thoughts on the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of the country’s housing movement are offered by Stone (1993) and Dreier (1997). It is likely that a right to decent, affordable housing can be advanced only if coalitions are established that involve organic connections with other groups fighting for progressive reform and ad- 240 Chester Hartman vancement of rights in health, food, education, and income support programs. Alliances also must be made across class and race lines, revealing the housing system’s inability to provide for the basic needs of an ever-growing portion of the population, connecting the problems of the poor with the problems of the middle class, the problems of homeowners with the problems of renters. The housing question touches deeply on issues of race and racism. A right to decent, affordable housing inevitably will involve a far greater degree of residential integration than now is the case. Major resistance to dealing with the fundamental flaws in the nation’s housing system may stem from society’s resistance to dealing with race issues. President Clinton’s new Race Initiative and its advisory board, chaired by the distinguished historian John Hope Franklin, may help us deal with that resistance constructively (see Hartman 1997).
Champion Briefs 379