Chester Hartman, director of research at the Poverty & Race Research Action Council in Washington, DC, 2006, "The Case for a Right to Housing," National Housing Institute, http://nhi.org/online/issues/148/righttohousing.html
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.
Housing is widely available in the United States.
Loha 11 (Leader of Amnesty International “How Bad is The Homeless Problem?” 2011)
Since 2007, banks have foreclosed around eight million homes. It is estimated that another eight to ten million homes will be foreclosed before the financial crisis is over. This approach to resolving one part of the financial crisis means many, many families are living without adequate and secure housing. In addition, approximately 3.5 million people in the U.S. are homeless, many of them veterans. It is worth noting that, at the same time, there are 18.5 million vacant homes in the country.
Share with your friends: |
