Is decent housing a human right?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

It is evident that some people have no shelter at all - for whatever reason, some people have really inadequate shelter, many people have reasonable shelter, and a few have very extravagant versions of that same asset - but is it a human right? 

And if it is a human right, who is the proper provider?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion...ordability

[Olive]

I think equality of access to shelter is a human right and in developed countries it is the state's responsibility to try to keep a balance in the economy that allows for equal access.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Hmmm, and how much of a role should 'effort' play in accessing this human right? Is it not that effort that is reflected in the various kinds of shelter we can access as individuals? As disproportionate as that seems to be these days...

[king1]

Article 25 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we seem to ascribe to...

https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/9914/2399/51...eprint.pdf

[Oldfellah]

If houses were built just for rental purposes I really think they will become tomorrows slums because the article states It is a form of housing thatÔÇÖs developed with the intention that units will be retained by the developer as permanent rental properties.

Can you imagine the developer/landlord spending hundreds of $$ to keep these places up to scratch if they are filled with bad tenants, and the way things are here in NZ you it seems impossible that you cant evict people if they trash your place. So these developer/landlords will only do what they have to by law, so that is why I reckon they will be tomorrows slums.

[Olive]

Hmmm, and how much of a role should 'effort' play in accessing this human right? Is it not that effort that is reflected in the various kinds of shelter we can access as individuals? As disproportionate as that seems to be these days...

I don't quite understand what you mean by "effort" in this context.   Are you saying that the harder a citizen works the better the accommodation she/he is entitled to?   That ignores many variables including disability, race and gender discrimination and family inheritance.

---

If houses were built just for rental purposes I really think they will become tomorrows slums because the article states It is a form of housing thatÔÇÖs developed with the intention that units will be retained by the developer as permanent rental properties.

.

Not necessarily.   In many European cities renting is a perfectly respectable long term form of accommodation, tenants's rights are respected and landlords have security of income.   My experience in a big apartment building in Berlin which was part owner-occupied and part tenanted was that all of the residents took responsibility for upkeep, communal activities such as recycling.   The pre-war building was in fine shape.

The same could happen in Aotearoa.

[Oldfellah]

Hmmm, and how much of a role should 'effort' play in accessing this human right? Is it not that effort that is reflected in the various kinds of shelter we can access as individuals? As disproportionate as that seems to be these days...

I don't quite understand what you mean by "effort" in this context.   Are you saying that the harder a citizen works the better the accommodation she/he is entitled to?   That ignores many variables including disability, race and gender discrimination and family inheritance.

---

If houses were built just for rental purposes I really think they will become tomorrows slums because the article states It is a form of housing thatÔÇÖs developed with the intention that units will be retained by the developer as permanent rental properties.

.

Not necessarily.   In many European cities renting is a perfectly respectable long term form of accommodation, tenants's rights are respected and landlords have security of income.   My experience in a big apartment building in Berlin which was part owner-occupied and part tenanted was that all of the residents took responsibility for upkeep, communal activities such as recycling.   The pre-war building was in fine shape.

The same could happen in Aotearoa.

Fair enough but New Zealand is not the rest of the world or Berlin we are a nation all on our own and sadly this nation appears not to have respect for other peoples property, for starters the gangs are always looking for new places to live, the 501 deportees will need somewhere to live, and what I have noticed is that new immigrants from 3rd world countries (nothing against them) tend to live anywhere from 2 to 4 families in a house because thats what they are used to, I know it works in other countries , been there done that but I really dont think it will work in New Zealand. Just my opinion of course

[dken31]

Traditionally, "rights" afforded to individuals in modern western societies cover things you're allowed to do for yourself or things others are NOT allowed to do to you. So they don't compel anyone to do anything, other than requiring the government to step in to prevent people infringing other people's rights.

Including housing or food as a "basic human right" is a huge ideological shift as that would compel other people to do something. Someone could choose to do absolutely nothing to help themselves, and "by right" other people would have to arrange and pay for their food and housing. I realise that is pretty much the system we already have, what with massively problematic HNZ tenants not being able to be evicted etc., however formally recognising housing and food as "rights" would make it even harder for anyone to ever achieve any desperately needed change in that area of social welfare support.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Animals exert effort to find shelter. They build nests, construct dams, dig holes, burrow, perch - only human beings seem to require vast amounts of regulation and engineering specs to provide the shelter they need to survive.

And yes, I know that is huge exaggeration, but it demonstrates a point about effort.

And effort is what separates good tenant from bad.

So maybe we need to invest in life education that goes beyond toothbrushing, alongside that 'save up for a deposit' mantra our society seems to consider part of growing up. And maybe we need to invest in quality rentals as the article suggests, because the reality is increasing numbers of us are going to need to rent, for life.

[Lilith7]

https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/4215/1363/56...pdated.pdf

"The human right to adequate housing is
binding legal obligation of the State of New
Zealand. This means the State of New
Zealand has agreed to ensure that the right
to adequate housing is progressively
realised in New Zealand. It is an
ÔÇ£international obligationÔÇØ that must be
performed in New Zealand.

The State has a duty to protect the right of
people in New Zealand to enjoy adequate
housing and a responsibility to provide remedies."


I think not providing decent housing because some tenants are irresponsible is deeply unfair to tenants. In some European countries, renting for life is usual with several generations sometimes renting the same property over decades.
Developers here who build properties specifically to rent should, imo have some restriction's in place so they're not able to exploit tenants with high rents & inadequate repairs/ maintenance.
It seems likely that the days when everyone could hope to own a home may be gone, (though I do think that should be made more accessible for most) & rent for life may become the norm; if that happens then it needs to be as fair as possible to both tenant & landlord.

And if we end up being a nation which mostly rents - could we please NOT have every last property painted grey!

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Such a nothing colour...

Silver, now there's a good colour!

[Magoo]

I suppose if you take out the homeless by choice, then the rest wished they had a home.
is it our responsibility to provide one? i dont think so.
there is a difference between shelter and a home.
i think its our responsibility to provide shelter until that home is found.

we already provide significant accommodation subsidiaries to renters on benefits, even to some that arent.
this has not helped the market. an external catalyst unbalances the value at the bottom end
this inflates the rents over time as the pool of renters better enabled to pay, increases.

the law of decreasing marginal returns states the the more available something is the cheaper it becomes.
the answer seems blatantly simple. build more houses.

we have made that process such quagmire that even a government backed plan with billions of dollars at its disposal only managed to build a few hundred. if an organisation as well funded as a government cant do it, how are construction companies and developers supposed to make it happen? we are seeing construction companies going belly up during a housing shortage. so much is time and money is being absorbed by regulation, permits, inspections, health and safety, tax and insurance there is little room for margin. more is spent on peripheral shit with no tangible return than is spent on the materials to build.

the entire process needs simplifying, speeding up and costing less. overhaul it. make the process more inclusive rather than exclusive as it is now. take it out of the hands of councils, its a national issue not a provincial one.
standardise it and legislate to capitalise the bottom end of the market. (interest free loans, first home subsidy etc). this has to be better than the indefinite, unending reliance on welfare to bandaid the problem.

[Lilith7]

Such a nothing colour...

Silver, now there's a good colour!

It looks especially good with black. Or virtually any colour really.

---

I think probably those who want to be homeless would be a small number.
Part of any govt's responsibility is the well being of its people; that should surely include adequate housing if large numbers can no longer hope to own a home.

If we have more rental housing, then there's no reason the rent couldn't be limited to a proportion of the tenant's income, (as govt housing is) so we no longer have the present situation where tenants are sometimes paying almost all their income in rent.

On a different note, I was reading the other day about the use of hempcrete bricks in building houses, bricks are printed out on a 3D printer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqLXXjvQXgI

Then there are these Italian 'beehive houses'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MLJs1KRa0Y

[Oh_hunnihunni]

My rent is limited to 30% of my gross primary income, and I cannot exceed a set limit in cash or assets. I know though that a number of my neighbours have stashed capital so as to qualify for a unit so the system is not foolproof.

Seems for some people living in these tiny units at a subsidised rent is such desirable thing, despite the negative social housing connotation, that they will actually tell fibs to achieve it.

But then, there have always been dishonest people willing to beat the system for their own reasons.

[Lilith7]

There always will be, I think. We humans can be a devious lot. Just about anything you can think of which humans have come up with, can often be overcome or got around somehow by the ingenuity of other humans.
Which is why I think its an excellent idea for any pending possible laws to be gone over with a fine toothcomb by an argument of lawyers, checking for loopholes.

(I had to use that term; its just so apt!)

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Maybe we need to build public shelter areas, where folk can come to rest with basic hygiene facilities. If bus shelters are attractive overnight resting places for the homeless, maybe we need to provide more of those kinds of roofed places for those who cannot cope with a politically motivated bureaucrats idea of a safe healthy home. Community shelter, like community gardens.

It has to be better than a doorway or under a bridge, surely.

[Lilith7]

Maybe we need to build public shelter areas, where folk can come to rest with basic hygiene facilities. If bus shelters are attractive overnight resting places for the homeless, maybe we need to provide more of those kinds of roofed places for those who cannot cope with a politically motivated  bureaucrats idea of a safe healthy home. Community shelter, like community gardens.

It has to be better than a doorway or under a bridge, surely.

That makes good sense to me & probably to most people - but there will always be those keen to object to helping people worse off than themselves, for unfathomable reasons.

[Magoo]

Maybe we need to build public shelter areas, where folk can come to rest with basic hygiene facilities. If bus shelters are attractive overnight resting places for the homeless, maybe we need to provide more of those kinds of roofed places for those who cannot cope with a politically motivated  bureaucrats idea of a safe healthy home. Community shelter, like community gardens.

It has to be better than a doorway or under a bridge, surely.

this is what i think we have an obligation to provide.
shelter and in every aspect the word entails.
safe, warm lodging, somewhere clean and functional with laundry facilities and kitchens.
in a communal setting where access to the support needed to find permanent housing is available.

we already have a place where this could happen. the marae.
there would have to be a paradigm shift in attitudes before that could happen.

[Me+Me]

If you're going to confer rights then you need also to add that along with the access to rights come responsibilities.

Seems everyone has a right to housing ? And bugger all responsibility to look after what they 'by right' have ?

[Lilith7]

I don't think anyone is advocating that tenants shouldn't be responsible, but there will always be some who are irresponsible; that's just human nature sadly.
Just as there are good landlords & bad ones.