Right to Housing
Rachel Bratt says, "Without a guaranteed right to housing in
the United States, thousands of households are struggling to find and keep
housing they can afford." ( Rachel G. Bratt, "Americans deserve a right to housing,"
Boston Globe, March 13, 2007)
The New Jersey Constitution states a right to be housed. Yet there are lots
of persons without homes in New Jersey. Having a right is one thing. Being able
to enforce the right, or to redress the violation of a right is another matter.
There must be a way to force compliance, not just stating a right. Knowing
how the Americans with Disabilities Act works shows that paper rights are
meaningless.
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA
Americans deserve a right to housing
Boston Globe
By Rachel G. Bratt
March 13, 2007
RECENTLY, THREE stories about housing were in the news. Although they may seem
unconnected, they are closely linked and we need to pay attention to the
messages they convey.
First, both the French prime minister and president announced support for a
legal right to housing .
Following the lead set by Scotland, France would elevate housing as a social
right, on a par with education. Despite calls for a right to housing in the
United States, notably by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944 as part of what he
called a Second Bill of Rights, this country has only articulated a national
housing goal: "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American
family."
But this rhetoric has not translated into a commitment to action.
In the absence of the political will to supply consistent and sufficient public
resources, federal, state, and local governments have taken an indirect route by
providing incentives to the private for-profit sector as an enticement for them
to enter the realm of "affordable" housing. This brings us to the second story.
Since 1969 Massachusetts has articulated the need for all cities and towns to
have at least 10 percent of their housing stock dedicated to affordable housing.
In communities that are short of this goal, Chapter 40B allows developers to
petition to over ride local zoning if at least 20 to 25 percent of the units are
reserved for affordable occupancy.
Since the enactment of 40B, more than 47,000 homeownership and rental units have
been created; about half of this housing is affordable to households earning 80
percent of area median income or less. In recent years, 40B has been responsible
for 30 percent of housing production in the state and 80 percent of housing for
low- and moderate-income households in suburban communities.
In addition, the majority of 40B housing is good to look at, blends in well with
its surroundings, and is an important community asset.
There have been many critics of 40B even though these developments are typically
constructed with little or no public funds. Affordability is typically attained
by the market rate units cross-subsidizing those reserved for the less affluent
households. Most recently, a report released by the inspector general disclosed
that a number of developers of 40B housing had realized inappropriate profits.
Of course, in market-rate housing, developers have no limit on their profits.
Under 40B, however, any profit in excess of 20 percent of total development
costs must be returned to the towns for affordable housing purposes.
The inspector general's review of five 40B homeownership developments found that
three exceeded the 20 percent profit limitation and that two did not. However,
in each case the developers are disputing these findings, arguing that the
inspector general is retroactively applying new rules to these older
developments and that they therefore do not owe money to the towns.
Whether or not the inspector general's analysis will prevail, there is a much
larger story, which brings us to the third news item: Decent affordable housing
is a great concern all across Massachusetts. The Donahue Institute at the
University of Massachusetts recently released the results of a survey indicating
that about two-thirds of Massachusetts residents rated the cost of housing as a
significant concern, up from less than half the population just a year earlier.
Also alarming is that nearly 36 percent of those surveyed indicated that they or
members of their immediate family "have seriously considered moving out of
Massachusetts because of the cost of housing."
This story brings us back to the first. Without a guaranteed right to housing in
the United States, thousands of households are struggling to find and keep
housing they can afford.
In the absence of sufficiently well-funded public programs that provide
long-term assistance, we will continue to grapple with how to squeeze housing
out of inadequate funding. Despite inappropriate profits, we need to exercise
restraint about condemning a proven strategy for producing decent affordable
housing.
A well-funded, multifaceted federal right to housing program would enable us to
meet needs of residents of this state and across the country. Chapter 40B is
only part of this complex agenda; Massachusetts could be a leader in
articulating the goal of a right to housing for all residents -- and then
delivering on this promise.
Rachel G. Bratt is professor and chairwoman of the Department of Urban and
Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University, and a fellow at the Joint
Center for Housing Studies , Harvard University.
