Great Scot!: the Scottish Plan to End Homelessness and Lessons for the Housing Rights Movement in the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy Volume XVI, Number 1, Winter 2009 Great Scot!: The Scottish Plan to End Homelessness and Lessons for the Housing Rights Movement in the United States Eric S. Tars and Caitlin Egleson* Scotland has a great mission to end homelessness by 2012. We share a similar vision and we base it on the notion of abolishing a social wrong, a social evil. If you look at the initiatives in Scotland and in the United States, there are great similarities, such as on the priority of partnership and increased resources from central government. The strategies that are being developed in Scotland are aimed to accomplish certain results within a specific time frame, moving away from managing homelessness to ending it. What we’ve come to realize in the last 20 years is that no one level of government and no one element of the private sector can do this alone. This is a national problem with local solutions. —Philip Mangano, Chair of the Inter-Agency Council on Homelessness1 INTRODUCTION An estimated 3.5 million people experience homelessness in the United States in any given year, including over 1 million children.2 While many face literal street homelessness, millions more are doubled up with friends or family, or living paycheck-to-paycheck and in danger of losing their housing at any point.3 At the core of this problem is an overwhelming deficit of affordable housing, with a full-time minimum wage worker unable to afford a single bedroom apartment anywhere in the country.4 The current foreclosure crisis is making matters worse, both for homeowners who are losing their life’s savings and being forced into * Eric S. Tars is the Human Rights Staff Attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP). Caitlin Egleson is a 3rd year law student at Northeastern University Law School and a former Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy Fellow at NLCHP. © 2009, Eric S. Tars and Caitlin Egleson. 1. BBC News Online, Scotland’s Homeless Drive Praised, Mar. 23, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/ fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4834902.stm. 2. Martha Burt et al., Helping America’s Homeless (Washington: The Urban Institute Press, 2001), 49-50. 3. See JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIV., STATE OF THE NATION’S HOUSING 2008 4 (2008), [hereinafter JOINT CENTER REPORT] (“[I]n 2006, 39 million households were at least moderately cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of income on housing) and nearly 18 million were severely cost burdened (paying more than 50 percent)”). 4. NATIONAL LOW INCOME HOUS.COAL., OUT OF REACH (2005) (based on federal affordability guidelines, or 30% of income or less spent on rent). 187 188The Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy [Vol. XVI homelessness, and for renters whose buildings are being sold off and who face eviction through no fault of their own.5 A country that recognized the basic human right to housing would not let this happen to its people. The government would recognize its duty to ensure the right, through proactive policies that require communities to plan to meet the affordable housing needs of their residents, enable people to maintain their housing, and—for those on the streets—solidly assure that they will be quickly and adequately housed for as long as it takes to get them stable and back on their feet.6 The U.S. is sadly not that country. We seemed to be headed in the right direction when Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared that “we have adopted a . second Bill of Rights . Among these are . the right of every family to a decent home.”7 His wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, was a central figure in drafting and promoting the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees to every individual “the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services...”8 But by the time Congress got around to creating the Housing Act of 1949, this right had been whittled back to “the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family” (emphasis added).9 Subsequently, the U.S. has failed to take any further steps toward an enforceable right to housing domestically, and has opposed at the international level any notion of justiciable standards for the right to housing.10 The international community, however, has moved forward without the U.S.11 The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has defined the human right to adequate housing by seven criteria. These are: (a) Legal security of tenure. 5. See generally JOINT CENTER REPORT, supra note 3. 6. See generally Robert Rosenthal & Maria Foscarinis, Responses to Homelessness: Past Policies, Future Directions, and a Right to Housing, in 316 A RIGHT TO HOUSING:AFOUNDATION FOR ANEW SOCIAL AGENDA, 322–23 (Rachel Bratt et al. eds., 2006); Maria Foscarinis, Brad Paul, Bruce Porter & Andrew Scherer, The Right to Housing: Making the Case in U.S. Advocacy,38CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 97, 100 (2004). 7. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, State of the Union Address (Jan. 11, 1944), available at http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/011144.html. 8. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III) at art. 25(1), U.N. Doc A/810 (Dec. 12, 1948). 9. Housing Act of 1949, ch. 338, 63 Stat. 413. 10. See, e.g., United States, Initial Report to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Part II(C) Art. 5, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/351/Add.1 (Oct. 10, 2000). (“Some of these enumerated rights, which may be characterized as economic, social and cultural rights, [including the right to adequate housing] are not explicitly recognized as legally enforceable ‘rights’ under U.S. law.”) 11. See NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS &POVERTY, Homelessness in the U.S and the Human Right to Housing (2004), at 11-35. No. 1]Great Scot! 189 (b) Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure. (c) Affordability. (d) Habitability. (e) Accessibility. (f) Location. (g) Cultural adequacy.12 12. COMMITTEE ON ECON., SOC. AND CULTURAL RIGHTS [HEREINAFTER CESCR], General Comment 4, The right to adequate housing, at 114, U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III (1991), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, at ¶ 8, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 18 (2003). Each of these rights is further defined: (a) Legal security of tenure. Tenure takes a variety of forms, including rental (public and private) accommodation, cooperative housing, lease, owner-occupation, emergency housing and informal settlements, including occupation of land or property. Notwithstanding the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. States parties should consequently take immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those persons and households currently lacking such protection, in genuine consultation with affected persons and groups; (b) Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure. An adequate house must contain certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. All beneficiaries of the right to adequate housing should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services; (c) Affordability. Personal or household financial costs associated with housing should be at such a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. Steps should be taken by States parties to ensure that the percentage of housing-related costs is, in general, commensurate with income levels. States parties should establish housing subsidies for those unable to obtain affordable housing, as well as forms and levels of housing finance which adequately reflect housing needs. In accordance with the principle of affordability, tenants should be protected by appropriate means against unreason- able rent levels or rent increases. In societies where natural materials constitute the chief sources of building materials for housing, steps should be taken by States parties to ensure the availability of such materials; (d) Habitability. Adequate housing must be habitable, in terms of providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards, and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must be guaranteed as well. The Committee encourages States parties to comprehensively apply the Health Principles of Housing e prepared by WHO which view housing as the environmental factor most frequently associated with conditions for disease in epidemiological analyses; i.e. inadequate and deficient housing and living conditions are invariably associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates; (e) Accessibility. Adequate housing must be accessible to those entitled to it. Disadvantaged groups must be accorded full and sustainable access to adequate housing resources. Thus, such disadvantaged groups as the elderly, children, the physically disabled, the terminally ill, HIV-positive individuals, persons with persistent medical problems, the mentally ill, victims of natural disasters, people living in disaster-prone areas and other groups should be ensured some degree of priority consideration in the housing sphere. Both housing law and policy should take fully into account the special housing needs of these groups. Within many States parties increasing access to land by landless or impoverished segments of the society should constitute a central policy goal. Discernible governmental obligations need to be developed aiming to 190The Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy [Vol.