Saturday, June 10, 2023
62.3 F

    Latest Posts

    United States Socialist Republic book by HG Goerner

    How adding a right to housing in the California constitution could alleviate the crisis

    Michael Tubbs, Special to CalMatters, Desert Sun

    This is a great idea. Make housing a human right and everybody has a house. But who pays for it? If you have a house, then water and electricity are also a human right. Who pays for it? The most basic item is food. Isn’t that a human right? Who pays for it. The Biden Administration is giving FREE cell phones to illegal aliens—why not to all Americans—who pays for it.

    Call it a human right and then the government is responsible. Oh, just like Cuba, Russia and China. We call that communism—that is what is being promoted. Ready to lose your freedoms and right to choose (except if you want to kill a baby).

    Despite Gov. Gavin Newsom’s historic commitment to ending California’s housing crisis – and the administration’s arm-twisting to try to make local jurisdictions do the right thing – we have not made the progress that Californians need. Forty percent of the state’s households now spend more on housing than they can afford, and California is home to more than half of the nation’s unsheltered people.

    A new proposal in the Legislature, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10, puts us on the precipice of significant change. If passed, Assemblymember Matt Haney’s bill would give voters the opportunity to enshrine housing as a fundamental right in our state constitution. The constitutional amendment would provide the state with a game-changing legal tool – and an ongoing obligation no matter who is in office – to ensure that every person has access to a permanent, stable home.

    Creating a fundamental right to housing is consistent with public will. Indeed, a survey found that 55% of Californians view affordable housing as a community responsibility, and 58% believe affordable housing should be guaranteed. That’s not a surprise – people realize that a safe, secure and productive life is only possible with a home.

    A recent report by the American Civil Liberties Union and others shows why a constitutional amendment would have real teeth and is a long-overdue step towards ending the housing crisis. In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for every American to have a “decent home” regardless of “station, race or creed.” The U.S. then led the effort for the United Nations to draft and adopt the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, including a right to housing.

    Unfortunately, that right never took root back home. Instead, racism and classism has impacted U.S. housing policy at every level: From redlining that concentrated Black housing in high-poverty neighborhoods; to exclusionary covenants and zoning that limits construction to single-family homes that are unaffordable to the not-wealthy; to the kind of “reverse redlining” that steered Black borrowers who should have qualified for prime rates into subprime mortgages with teaser rates that would later skyrocket and result in foreclosure.

    This history has led to the kind of housing disparities we see in California today. Nearly half of all Black residents are “housing cost burdened” with little money to invest in their families and futures, including 64% of Black renter households. Among Latino renter households, 58% are burdened by housing costs.

    The proposed constitutional amendment would help reverse these trends.

    It would require the government to respect the right to housing by not interfering with it. So, if a local government passes zoning laws that prevent the construction of affordable housing, it would be in violation of the amendment and the courts could intervene.

    It would create an obligation to protect the right to housing from third-party threats. Consider the current financialization of our housing stock which treats our homes solely as a commodity – divorced from any obligation to keep people safe and secure. The constitutional amendment would require the government to regulate third-party profiteers, which could mean rent control, ensuring habitable conditions, tenant protections from harassment, a right to counsel in eviction proceedings, and other guardrails to keep people in their homes.

    Finally, the constitutional amendment would establish a government obligation to fulfill this new right by enacting policies and budgetary allocations to ensure that all Californians have secure housing. That means scaling the solutions that we know work such as vouchers, creating social housing outside of the private market, converting government-owned vacant lots into public housing and more.

    A constitutional amendment wouldn’t end the housing crisis overnight. But it would require the government to raise as many resources as possible for housing without undermining the long-term viability of the economy.

    Translation: Steady progress and the primacy of every individual’s right to housing.


    The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Citizens Journal


    - Advertisement -


    1 1 vote
    Article Rating
    Notify of

    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Ray Blattel
    Ray Blattel
    11 days ago

    This is stupid. In my opinion, we do not have a housing crisis/shortage. We have a shortage of folks who can afford to live here. Build ‘tiny house’ villages for folks with limited income. Not everybody needs a 3000 square foot house to meet their housing needs. If the government would change the tax laws and limit the amount one can write off with a mortgage, you’d be surprised how fast housing prices would drop. I know extremely ‘well-to-do’ families who have a 30,000 square foot house with only two people living in it. Why? They need the write off for tax purposes. This is crazy. Our government itself is sometimes it’s own enemy.

    The Urban Visionary
    The Urban Visionary
    10 days ago
    Reply to  Ray Blattel

    Right, we need new thinking. How about this: IN THE RIGHT LOCATION we build a high-rise. OWNER OCCUPIED buildings say 10-floor maximum..
    They would be priced so modest-income people with a desire to OWN a residence could do so. The key to acceptability is that CAR OWNERSHIP is prohibited and strictly enforced. In its place, there would be a floor where short-term rental EV cars, bicycles, and scooters would be stored. In exchange for the ‘no car’ ownership rule cities would need to step up the availability of public transport. Markets and other needed businesses would necessarily need to locate close by. This idea solves many problems faced by cities such as Ventura: 1. Provides ownership to people currently priced out of ownership. 2. Does not add to car congestion. 3. Makes our cities more compact and liveable.
    I submit we ‘break the mold’ and give this idea serious consideration.

    Latest Posts


    Don't Miss


    To receive the news in your inbox

    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x