The right to housing as a human rights and homelessness

With the current dire socioeconomic climate in most parts of the world, more and more people are being forced into the outskirts of society. As a result, homelessness is a growing concern globally, where these individuals are marginalised and face extreme cases of poverty and multiple victimisation. In response to this progressing social issue, a number of studies have been conducted to explore the various pathways into homelessness, with the majority focusing primarily on mental health and/or substance abuse as the main contributors. As the existing body of knowledge expanded, these pathways were later subdivided into individual risk factors (childhood adversity, mental illness and/or substance abuse) and structural factors (poverty, social exclusion and lack of affordable housing). However, these pathways are not limited to the aforementioned factors and also include low education and literacy levels, various physical health challenges and disabilities. As part of a broader study on the experiences of victimisation of the homeless, specific pathways were explored with a theoretical purposive sample of 17 homeless individuals who resided in shelters located in the Free State and Northern Cape provinces of the Republic of South Africa. The data was collected by means of semi-structured interviews and analysed and presented utilising common themes drawn from the individual narratives of the participants. The pathways identified in the study included, but are not limited to childhood adversity, poverty/unemployment; domestic violence; and family conflict. It therefore becomes imperative to identify and better understand these pathways, in order to create and implement strategies uniquely designed for this marginalised population in an attempt to reduce and ultimately prevent this local and global social issue.

At the heart of this proof of evidence is an evaluation of the regeneration benefits and disbenefits of the First Development Site (FDS) proposals for the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Land. In my evidence I will describe, explain and analyse how the FDS proposals are likely to impact on the Aylesbury Estate and contribute to the well-being of Estate residents in Sites 1b and 1c, in the interests of the residents and in the wider public interest. In order to do this I will provide an explanation and discussion of four complex concepts: ‘gentrification’, ‘community’, ‘regeneration' and ‘mixed communities’.  Gentrification, due to its conceptual weaknesses, struggles to encompass the complexities of the FDS proposals.

Mixed communities-led regeneration is supported by independent academic research for the benefits it can bring. Despite this, it is regarded by some objectors and academics as de facto gentrification. That position is not tenable and objectors have to explain how the disbenefits of the FDS scheme outweigh the obvious and substantial benefits in the short, medium and long term. The policy and practice of mixed communities are not perfect and do not offer utopian solutions in the case of the Estate. It is evident though, that this approach in the present socio-economic climate, has the capacity to deliver genuine improvements to troubled estates, the Aylesbury included.

I conclude that the FDS proposals will bring genuine aspirational regeneration to the Estate. The FDS proposals are likely to bring significant sustainable improvements in the conditions of Aylesbury residents suffering from aspects of deprivation, often multiple in nature. Others to benefit will be incoming residents who find a home in the FDS, especially an affordable one, and those who find employment during the long construction phase and after completion. Nevertheless, a long term view must be taken regarding: safeguarding, delivery and resourcing of this estate regeneration programme.

Finally, I conclude that under section 226, the Council must show that the FDS proposal for the CPO Land promotes or improves one or more of the: social, economic or environmental well-being of the area. This is right and proper because the FDS scheme impinges on tenants’ and leaseholders’ property rights. There are undoubtedly and unfortunately some disbenefits associated with the CPO proposals. However, drawing on the evidence presented in this proof, I am convinced that the regeneration benefits of the FDS scheme for the CPO Land are substantial, guaranteed to be delivered and far outweigh the disbenefits. I look forward to the CPO being confirmed so that the benefits can be achieved, to improve the lives, livelihoods and life chances of Aylesbury Estate residents.

This short community practice note examines the strategies and tactics of the Inner City Federation (ICF), a self-organising coalition of tenants and unlawful occupiers from over 40 buildings in inner-city Johannesburg in South Africa that advocates for housing and basic services, and challenges the stigma associated with low-income inner-city residents. The  community practice note provides a brief background to the challenges facing low-income tenants and unalwful occupiers in inner-city Johannesburg. It also summarises the key events in the struggles of poor inner-city residents to resist evictions, harassment and displacement; establish and maintain effective self-management structures in dilapidated buildings; collectively mobilise; and advocate for decent housing.

Open access: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616718.2014.936179#.VQVYUxz40mw
In recent years responses to neoliberal urbanism and social injustice have been framed in terms of ‘the right to the city’, both by academics and social movements. This special issue presents case studies of housing struggles from around the globe that are framed within a right to the city perspective. In this introduction to the special issue we first present a short synopsis of the idea of a right to the city, as put forward by Henri Lefebvre; second, we briefly discuss earlier work that has used a right to the city lens to look at housing; and third, we provide an overview of the papers that make up this special issue.
Keywords: Henri Lefebvre; right to the city; housing; private property; social exclusion; social movements

The 2016 federal Budget has been heralded by some in the media and the social housing advocacy community as marking a new beginning in the relationship between the Crown and the First Nations of Canada. Evidence of the impressive scale of the investment can be found throughout the budget, but is perhaps greatest in the area of the social housing expenditures. For the first time ever, the budget includes an entire section dedicated to the needs of First Nations People, and around 554.3 Million dollars  has been earmarked for addressing the housing crisis for First Nations communities living on-reserve, over two years. While the news was welcomed by most First Nations leaders , some of them still have doubts as to whether and how the government will deliver on this promise to First Nations communities.

In recent years the issue of housing on-reserve has been a highly contentious political, social, and economic, question and has on occasion, led to extremely fraught public disputes between the Crown and First Nation’s Canadians.  Thus, it is only natural that First Nations remain skeptical that they will benefit from the Crown’s newfound commitment to social housing. Among the biggest concerns, will inevitably be what accountability mechanisms will be in place should such policies fail to live up to their ideals and good intentions fail to translate into more social housing on-reserve?

In recent decades, particularly in the post-Charter era, the judiciary has played a growing part in ensuring that government respect their constitutional and treaty duties under Canadian law  as well as its international legal obligations. 

Hence, this project sets out to explore what, if any, legal recourse First Nations will have in the event that they make a claim to the right to social housing through the Canadian judiciary. After all, as many jurists have already stated “housing insecurity as indigenous peoples experience it on-reserve needs specific analysis”

This is an open source public document produced in connection with a UK urban regeneration CPO public inquiry. It should be read in association with other public inquiry documents including my proofs and those of Loretta Lees. In evidence, Professor Lees drew the Inspector’s attention to her current Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded research project. Attention was also drawn to the ESRC website which was said to contain a copy of the relevant research bid document. In fact, the website contains only a summary (appendix 1) of the full bid document that was submitted in evidence on 31 January 2018. The website identifies Professor Lees as the Principal Investigator. At the outset, I would note that the general subject of Professor Lees’ ESRC research outlined in the bid is welcome and necessary. The wish to evaluate the impacts of estate regeneration policy is commendable. That said, this response statement is intended to help the Inspector and the Secretary of State (SoS) understand the relevance of the research bid in the light of this CPO Public Inquiry and the evidence of Professor Lees. This statement provides a response to the research brief as it was called in evidence, for the ESRC project above. The brief is, in effect, the research bid that secured the funding for the project. This response is in two parts: 1) a response to the full research bid and 2) a response to the Abstract that is published on the ESRC website. This website Abstract contains the reference to Mr Boris Johnson’s “Kosovo-style social cleansing” that was referred to in oral evidence by Professor Lees.

The Right to Housing for First Nations and Options for Indigenous Independent Housing

In the Post-Charter era, the judiciary has played a growing role ensuring that the Federal government respects their Constitutional and Treaty duties towards Indigenous Canadians under Canadian law as well as its international legal obligations. For the first time, the federal budget includes an entire section dedicated to the needs of First Nations people. While the news was welcomed by many First Nations leaders, some still have doubts as to whether and how the government will deliver on this promise. This session will explore what, if any, legal recourse First Nations will have if they make a claim to the right to social housing through the Canadian judiciary.
This session will also explore how the sense of community has been taken away from Indigenous people by efforts that divided families (intentionally and non-intentionally) through mechanisms of assimilation (residential schools, breaking up the household through housing, seniors homes, foster care) and the role that creative approaches to housing can bring communities back together by placing the family unit back together in the home.

This study examines the effects of the implementation of Zambia's home ownership scheme in an attempt to help low-income men and women realize their housing rights. A qualitative methodology was employed to gain a deep understanding of the subject matter. The theoretical perspective used in this study is based on alternative development and Gender and Development (GAD). The study found that houses were sold to: fulfil economic policies of privatization and Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs); detach housing provision from employment; and empower the low income to improve their poverty situation. To qualify for the purchase of houses, a legal tenant in possession of tenancy card needed to be a Zambian citizen. The cost of houses was considerably low, and many people bought their houses, but some people were evicted as they could not afford due to economic hardships and malpractices in the process. Some of those who bought houses face a challenge in maintaining them and paying land rates. Some people were denied their rights hence became disempowered as they could not afford the purchase of their houses. Financial instability put most poor people at the risk of losing their houses as they were already defaulting in rates and fail to maintain them. There were no measures put in place to help the poor realize their housing rights by protecting them from evictions and ensure that they acquire decent housing.

En los últimos tiempos y desde una perspectiva de derechos se barajan
distintos términos relacionados de forma directa o indirecta a la vivienda. Son
conceptos relacionados entre sí, pero de los que se hace difícil saber a priori hasta
dónde alcanza su conexión, ya sea para complementarse o para oponerse.
Resulta evidente que no son la misma cosa vivienda que derecho a la ciudad.
No obstante, ambos conceptos configuran una narrativa estrechamente relacionada
que ayuda a entender la disyuntiva en relación a unas sociedades que, al parecer,
dudan entre optar por la vía de derecho y la justicia social, o por la del neoliberalismo y
la desigualdad social.
Las personas sin hogar, las personas en situación de calle, han sido, siempre y
en todo el mundo, explícitamente consideradas en su situación –y problemática- al
margen de la discusión sobre el derecho a la vivienda, cuando es en ellas en las que de
forma más clara se evidencia hasta qué punto la ausencia de ésta dificulta
enormemente, cuando no excluye directamente del derecho a la participación activa
de la construcción de su comunidad y de su derecho a la ciudad.

Housing as a right has already passed the test of opinio juris, the ambition of the new century being this right to be seen fully implemented in practice. Housing is both a human right and a vital means of promoting peace and respect for human rights-'Home of human rights' in fact. This two track importance make the right to housing something more than a 'mere right'. In spite of its recognition in 'Fundamental Principle of State Policy', many a people are now inclined to call it the 'Fundamental Right' to Housing. This paper aims to provide some reflections on the glaring reality prevailing in Bangladesh in this regard. Extensive field work in Chittagong Metropolitan Area as well as academic inroad into the existing literature on housing rights finds out that the dream of 'Housing for All' is not so lofty a dream as it is usually professed in the policy making level. Recommendations follow the arguments addressing the issue on short, mid and long-term basis.

Less than a year ago, a 55 years old elder man committed suicide when he was going to be evicted from her house in Cornella. He didn’t have enough money to pay the rent, and he didn’t have any alternative place to live on. Unfortunately, this case is not an exception, the platform for the protection of those affected by mortgages (PAH) deals every week with hundreds of cases of people who cannot afford to pay their mortgage. That seems contradictory if we take into account that the Spanish Constitution establishes the right to housing, and that the public authorities should promote that everyone has access to a decent habitation.

This article examines the right of children to accommodation in Irish law. The legal framework regarding children's accommodation has developed mainly on foot of public interest litigation taken on behalf of children in need. Such litigation challenged an often -dysfunctional system of provision operating on inadequate and outdated legislation. Faced with this, lawyers and judges fell back on children's constitutional rights to bridge the gaps in protection. Since the coming into force of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights  on art.3 and art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights has also been cited in Ireland to promote children's rights to housing.

This first part of the article will focus on legislation, while the second part will deal with the Constitution and the Convention.

This rebuttal proof is a response to several proofs of evidence submitted by objectors at this public inquiry. In particular it is a response to the evidence of Professor Loretta Lees  regarding so called displacement and 'breaking up the community'. In this rebuttal proof of evidence, I focus on those points where I consider the Inspector may find it helpful to have a written response in advance of the public Inquiry. I provide the main rebuttal points but do not provide a comprehensive line by line response to the Objectors’ evidence. In most instances I am willing to provide a response in oral evidence at the Inquiry. Therefore, if I have not responded to or referred to other points in the Objectors’ evidence, it is not because I have accepted those points.

ABSTRACT In recent years responses to neoliberal urbanism and social injustice have been framed in terms of ‘the right to the city’, both by academics and social movements. This special issue presents case studies of housing struggles from around the globe that are framed within a right to the city perspective. In this introduction to the special issue we first present a short synopsis of the idea of a right to the city, as put forward by Henri Lefebvre; second, we briefly discuss earlier work that has used a right to the city lens to look at housing; and third, we provide an overview of the papers that make up this special issue.

Vital issues being excluded from the new Habitat Agenda at Habitat III (Quito, October 2016) are depleting the relevance of that global policy for the next twenty years. Civil society has the challenge of repairing those shortcomings with corrective content.

Since this summer, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) seems to give new hopes to social rights defenders. Although there is an expressly provided European right to housing, it is to be found in Article 31 of the Social Charter of the Council of Europe, i.e. a soft-law instrument. In the case-law of the ECtHR, housing is notably framed by two opposite rights of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR): Article 8, protecting the right to private and family life, and Article 1 Protocol No. 1, protecting the right to property.
Two recent decisions relating to housing, each concerning one of these provisions, retained the attention of housing professionals in Europe. In Nobel against Netherlands (application no 27126/11, 2nd July 2013), the Court offered a new analysis concerning the extent to which a State may limit the right to property in order to protect tenants, declaring three landlords’ joint complaints inadmissible. More strikingly in Winterstein and others against France (application no 27013/07, 17th October 2013, not translated from French yet), without initiating a positive right to housing, it unanimously underlined the obligations that a domestic court must fulfill, according to European case law, before validating a judgment for families’ eviction. This post seeks to raise attention to these cases as a possible evolution of the European frame of the right to housing.

This precis indicates the results of the second parte in the research held at the Human Rights Program, at Harvard Law School, in the subject on the interdependency between rights and remedies. It presents, from a positive perspective, that the reciprocal intervention might happend dua to remedial deterrence, remedial incorporation and remedial substantiation. The paper also draws a necessary pathway to remedial design, in an adjudication model that takes into account that possible interdependency, and the fact that it might lead to regression when it comes to rights enforcement.

This audio contains the initial presentation of the research proposal under development at the Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School. The main concern of the research is mapping the possible reciprocal interferences between rights and remedies in a civil law, non-precedent system like the Brazilian one, with a special focus in the right to housing case. The hypiothesis is that remedies do define rights content, in overcoming the lack of normative criteria.

(2014 LLM paper) Housing rights are protected by numerous legal instruments on human rights, from Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2008). In his official statement dated 16 January 2013, European Union Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, László Andor, acknowledges that homelessness "is by no means a crime or a lifestyle choice. In the last years, homelessness has risen almost everywhere in Europe, reaching unprecedented levels and affecting many people in society including youngsters, migrants and families with children." However, in 2013, the European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), established in Brussels, has published a report denouncing the recent trend within the EU to allow the penalization of homelessness.
In this contradictory legal context, what does the dual European legal order, and especially the primarily economics-oriented EU, bring to the realisation of housing rights in Europe?