Section on Violations of the Right to Housing
On July 15 and 16, 2006, the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign (PPEHRC) made history in Cleveland, Ohio by holding the first
National Truth Commission on Poverty in the United States of America. The National Truth Commission was held in Lincoln Park, in Cleveland's Tremont neighborhood. Years in the planning and modeled after similar commissions in Africa and Latin America, the National Truth Commission brought people from all across the U.S. and the world to bring to light the actual suffering and economic human rights violations that many Americans endure on a daily basis.
Nearly 500 people came to listen and be heard over the course of the weekend.
1. Is there a violation of the Right to Housing
There is a regressive instead of progressive trend for the last years in relation to the realization of a progressive right to housing as expressed in the Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements, The Habitat Agenda (1). The following evidences gathered during the National Truth Commission illustrate and substantiate this violation of the Istanbul Declaration signed by the United States of America in 1996:
(a) Hundreds of thousands Public housing apartments are demolished with an insignificant replacement process (2).
(b) Enhanced vouchers, even if a positive measure in itself, are not meeting at all the growing housing needs for adequate housing. For instance Chicago has a shortage of 153 000 housing units and the number of vouchers issued falls way below these urgent needs.
No budget has been available and it is only through people’s pressure that partial resources are being approved.
(c) Public Housing are being privatized and the government is pushing for homeownership people unable to pay is leading poor families to an insecure housing situation that results in the loosing of their homes. At the same time, renting is skyrocketing in some urban areas, especially those under gentrification, prohibiting the access to housing to poor families.
(d) Homelessness, especially among woman and children, has greatly increased over the past twenty-five years. Funding for homelessness prevention and relief programs is being reduced at all levels of government and by private relief institutions.
2. Why are there HR violations?
As a result of the measures indicated before, Homelessness is growing all through the country and ruthlessly highlights the violation of the Human Right to adequate housing. Housing is violated as a human right and transformed into a commodity through the mechanisms expressed before and through a lack of public policies, and a number of other mechanisms.
The Housing Rights violations are occurring particularly in relation with the Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (3) and with the Article 34 of the Charter of the Organization of American States. (4)
3. Who is responsible?
3.1. There is a shared responsibility of a number of parties with a prominent one for the Federal Government who is the most important single actor in charge of providing housing for low-income families in the USA. Through housing vouchers, federally managed Public Housing, tax credits and other tax programs for private developers, and other programs, the Federal Government sets the national agenda for policies to house the poor.
Over the last several decades, the Federal government has steadily taken money out of programs funding rental property and rental vouchers for low-income families and placed an emphasis on home ownership for middle class families. In effect, taking money out of the pockets of poor families and putting it into the hands of banks and mortgage companies. HUD has stated that it is getting out of the business of low-income public housing.
3.2. Local governments share responsibility in the violation of Housing Rights. Municipal, County and Federated States Governments have semi-independent housing apparatuses. Local governments are often heavily reliant on Federal funding to maintain their operations. As a result of this dependency they are often forced to make policy decisions based on Federal decisions.
Many local governments, faced with shrinking tax revenue, smaller Federal grants, increased pension and healthcare costs, and the burden of making up the funding gaps left by the decrease in Federal funding, are willing to follow the Federal government lead and decrease the number of low-income housing units in their jurisdiction.
Local governments, working with HUD, have redeveloped public housing and largely replaced it with market rate housing. Public Housing typically has existed on what is now high value property and its transformation to market rate communities has been a veritable gift to politically connected developers.
Unfortunately, funding on all levels of government to face and combat homelessness has not risen to meet the escalating demand resulting from the measures expressed before.
3.3.
The shared of responsibility of the private housing sector. The private sector and banks, development companies, landlords and management companies have built very little low-income housing over the past several decades and therefore share responsibility of the current appalling housing situation. In general, private entities rely on government financial mechanisms to ensure that they profit enough from the development and management of low-income housing. Very little low-income housing is built or converted without incentives and stipend.
Another worrying trend promoted primarily by the private sector is
condominium-conversions.Low-income and middle-income rental properties are rapidly being converted to high priced condominiums. Again, in Chicago alone it was mentioned that over 1,500 apartments per year have been converted since 2000 and put on the private market.
3.4. Not for profits and church based programs have provided shelter and transitional housing for homeless people. They are largely dependent on philanthropy and government funding. Although they have helped the homeless, they cannot come close to meeting the demand for homeless shelters and low-income housing.
3.5. Financial sectors, the banks and pension funds have not responded to the crisis in low-income housing in the USA. Banks and other financial institutions do provide, with federal and local government support, programs for middle-income families to purchase homes but provide little support for low-income rental development. They therefore contribute as well to the lack of housing rights for the poor.
3.6 Could theses violations have been prevented?
Yes, absolutely.
The housing policies of the U.S. Federal Government and, by proxy, of the local governments have been intentionally regressive over the past 25 years. Privatization has gained increased popularity and its rise has led to a massive withdrawal of public support for low-income and public housing. At the same time, Housing Authorities have nearly eliminated all their stock of public housing for low-income families over the past 10 years. The Federal policy of relying on the market to provide housing for low-income families has failed. At the same time, corruption and Federal influence has pushed local governments away from housing programs for the poor.
The current dramatic housing crisis could have been prevented if the USA had made an attempt to enforce the right to housing. The American government has largely the financial, institutional, human and technical resources at hand to address the housing crisis and facilitate access to an adequate housing for each woman and man leaving in the country. The Human Right to adequate Housing is willingly and repeatedly denied.
4. Recommendations and suggestions from the commissioners
4.1. The USA must without any delay recognized adequate housing as a human right.
As a first step, all parties should press the Government to ratify the following Bills of Rights and Covenants in order to dispose of a legal base to set up proper policies and at the same time to monitor progress:
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (5);
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (6);
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (7);
• American Convention on Human Rights (8) ;
• Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural right (9);
• Inter-American Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities (10).
4.2. The Federal and State Governments MUST
(a) Include the people themselves and primarily the organizations belonging to the PPERCH Campaign into their Housing Policy Formulation, Implementation and Monitoring. (11)
(b) Formulate and implement policies on housing and urban based on the Human Rights to adequate Housing as expressed in International Conventions and Covenants mentioned previously. These policies must in particular consider the following elements:
- Strengthen the public low-income housing sector and provide housing solutions for the poor and the homeless.
- Stop the ongoing and planned privatization of the public housing stock.
- Regulate the Real Estate markets on land and Housing
- Increase the number, the availability and the value of vouchers for the poor renters
(c) Vote a moratorium on forced evictions until low-income housing policies are put into place.
(d) Debate and implement with all of the interested organizations a plan of reconstruction post - Katrina to favor the re-installation of the affected communities.
(e) Set up a subsidy system for those under risk to lose their mortgaged house.
4.3. The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign should establish a watchdog system for violations of Rights, and planned forced evictions through the market or the government channels. This should go beyond legality, which is not in favor of the poor so far.
The Campaign should:
(a) Monitor in a systematic way the regressive nature of housing rights,
(b) Multiply the number of testimonies of the persons whose human rights are being violated. A permanent mechanism for denouncing the violation of Housing Rights should be put into place in order for the voices of the poor be heard and not silenced as occurs today.
(c) Take necessary measures to continue pressing the Government to protect the security of tenure and eliminate homelessness from the American land.
The following mechanisms are proposed:
- Exchange of experiences between actors (grassroots, local authorities, non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups) involved in implementing the right to housing both in the US and abroad.
- Participation to the Zero Eviction Campaign, beginning from the Zero Eviction Day (October 2006) in order to develop the international solidarity.
- Request for a UN-Habitat Advisory Group on Forced Eviction (UN AGFE) mission in order to facilitate the dialogue between the Campaign and the US Government. The mission could as be assigned the documentation of community lead cases considered positive by the Campaign to face the Housing crisis and the Housing Rights violations. Emerging from the people’s practices, the taking over management of public housing communities (12) appears as one of them that should deserve great attention.
Annex (13)
Human rights instruments in the USA
Multilateral treaties
149. The United States is at present Party to the following multilateral human rights instruments:
• Slavery Convention and its amending Protocol;
• Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery;
• Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees;
• Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights to Women;
• Convention on the Political Rights of Women;
• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
• ILO Convention No. 105 concerning the Abolition of Forced Labor;
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
• Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
• ILO Convention 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor;
• The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on Children in Armed Conflict;
• The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography.
150. Moreover, the United States has signed but not yet ratified the following multilateral human rights treaties:
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
• American Convention on Human Rights;
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
151. In addition, the United States has entered into many bilateral treaties (including consular treaties and treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation), which contain provisions guaranteeing various rights and protections to nationals of foreign countries on a reciprocal basis. In some cases, these may be invoked directly in United States courts for that purpose.
Treaties as law
152. Duly ratified treaties are binding on the United States as a matter of international law. Whether a given treaty has the force of domestic law, and if so, to what extent, will depend on the specific provisions of the treaty, including any reservations, understandings, or declarations made by the United States. For example, not all treaty provisions create judicially enforceable individual rights in the courts of the United States. In some cases where a treaty provision does not by its own force grant a judicially enforceable individual right, the federal government may enact implementing legislation that grants such a right as a means of implementing the treaty provision.
153. Historically, the prospect that the constitutional treaty power could be used to override or invalidate state and local law generated considerable domestic political controversy. Although it has been recognized that the treaty power is not limited by the scope of congressional authority over domestic matters (see Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), reliance upon that power to pre-empt State and local law has been considered by some to be an interference with the rights of the constituent States reserved to them under the Constitution. Consequently, the expectation has been that any changes to United States law required by treaty ratification will be accomplished in the ordinary legislative process.
154. Also, treaties as well as statutes must conform to the requirements of the Constitution.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Thus, the United States is unable to accept a treaty obligation which limits constitutionally protected rights, as in the case of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which infringes upon freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
155. Consequently, in giving advice and consent to ratification of a treaty concerning the rights of individuals, Congress must give careful consideration to the specific provisions of the treaty and to the question of consistency with existing state and federal law, both constitutional and statutory. When elements or clauses of a treaty conflict with the Constitution, it is necessary for the United States to take reservations to those elements or clauses, simply because neither the President nor Congress has the power to override the Constitution. In some cases, it has been considered necessary for the United States to state its understanding of a particular provision or undertaking in a treaty, or to make a declaration of how it intends to apply that provision or undertaking.
Implementation
156. When necessary to carry out its treaty obligations, the United States generally enacts implementing legislation rather than relying on a treaty to be “self-executing”. Thus, for example, to implement the Genocide Convention, the United States Congress adopted the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1091-93. When such legislation is required, the United States’ practice with respect to certain treaties has been to enact the necessary legislation before depositing its instrument of ratification. It is for this reason, for example, that the United States did not deposit its instrument of ratification for the Convention Against Torture until 1994, even though the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of that treaty in 1990, as Congress did not approve the necessary implementing legislation until May 1994.
157. However, the United States does not believe it necessary to adopt implementing legislation when domestic law already makes adequate provision for the requirements of the treaty. Again, the Convention Against Torture provides a case in point. While final ratification awaited enactment of legislation giving United States courts criminal jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts amounting to torture which had not previously been covered by United States law, no new implementing legislation was proposed with respect to torture within the United States because United States law at all levels already prohibited acts of torture within the meaning of the Convention. Similarly, because the basic rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (other than those to which the United States took a reservation) have long been protected as a matter of federal constitutional and statutory law, it was not considered necessary to adopt special implementing legislation to give effect to the Covenant’s provisions in domestic law. That important human rights treaty was accordingly ratified in 1992 shortly after the Senate gave its advice and consent.
IV. INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY
158. Information concerning human rights treaties is readily available to any interested person in the United States. All treaties, including human rights treaties, to which the United States is a Party, are published by the federal government, first in the Treaties and International Agreements Series (TIAS) and thereafter in the multi-volume United States Treaties (UST) series. Annually, the Department of State publishes a comprehensive listing of all treaties to which the United States is a Party, known as Treaties in Force (TIF). The constitutional requirement that the Senate give advice and consent to ratification of all treaties ensures that there is a public record of its consideration, typically including a formal transmission of the treaty from the President to the Senate, a record of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s public hearing and the Committee’s report to the full Senate, together with the action of the Senate itself.
159. The texts of all human rights treaties (whether or not the United States has ratified) can also be readily obtained from the government or virtually any public or private library, as they have been published in numerous non-governmental compilations and are also available in major computerized databases. The United Nations Compilation of International Instruments on Human Rights (ST/HR/1) is also widely available.
160. Although there is no national educational curriculum in the United States, instruction in fundamental constitutional, civil and political rights occurs throughout the educational system, from grammar and secondary school through the college and university levels. Most institutions of higher education, public and private, include courses on constitutional law in their departments of political science or government. Constitutional law is a required subject in law school curricula, and most law schools now offer advanced or specialized instruction in the area of civil and political rights, non-discrimination law and related fields. Nearly every law school curriculum includes instruction in international law including basic human rights law. Several textbooks have been published in the field, including documentary supplements, which contain
The texts of the more significant human rights instruments. The numerous non-governmental human rights advocacy groups in the United States, which operate freely, also contribute to public awareness and understanding of domestic and international rights and norms.
161. With particular respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the original transmittal of the treaty to the Senate was published in 1978 (Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Four Treaties Pertaining to Human Rights, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., Exec. E, 23 Feb. 1978). The record of Senate consideration has also been published (see Hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 21 Nov. 1991, S. Hrg. 102-478; Report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Exec. Rept. 102-23, 24 March 1992; 102 Cong. Rec. S4781-4784 (daily ed. 2 April 1992).
The full text of the treaty has also been published in the official journal of the federal government (see 58 Federal Register 45934-45942, No. 167, 31 Aug. 1993). Copies of the Covenant have also been sent to the attorneys-general of each state and constituent unit in the United States, with a request that they be further distributed to relevant officials. The fact of United States ratification and the text of the treaty have also been brought to the attention of state bar associations. Governmental officials have participated in a number of presentations at academic and professional meetings to highlight the significance of United States ratification.
162. Finally, the advice and input of various non-governmental organizations and other human rights professionals was sought and considered during the preparation of this report, and the report will be given wide distribution to the public and through interested groups such as the bar associations and human rights organizations.
NOTES
1 Signed by the USA on June 14 1996:
1. “We, the Heads of State or Government and the official delegations of countries assembled at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul”, Turkey from 3 to 14 June 1996,
... omissis ...
8. We reaffirm our commitment to the full and progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as provided for in international instruments. To that end, we shall seek the active participation of our public, private and non-governmental partners at all levels to ensure legal security of tenure, protection from discrimination and equal access to affordable, adequate housing for all persons and their families.
... omissis ...
2 See Chicago case for instance where the Housing Authority demolished 15 000 units of family housing and only 1000 were built to replaced the demolished ones. Source : The Coalition to Protect Public Housing, Chicago, Il. Housingisahumanright.com.
3 Adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
art. 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
... omissis ...
4 Ratified by the USA on June, 15 1951:
art. 34
The Member States agree that equality of opportunity, the elimination of extreme poverty, equitable distribution of wealth and income and the full participation of their peoples in decisions relating to their own development are, among others, basic objectives of integral development. To achieve them, they likewise agree to devote their utmost efforts to accomplishing the following basic goals:
... omissis ...
k) Adequate housing for all sectors of the population;
5 Signed by the USA on October, 5 1977:
Article 11:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
6 Entry into force on September, 2 1990
Article 27
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development.
3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.
... omissis ...
7 Signed by the USA on July 17, 1980
Article 14
1. States Parties shall take into account the particular problems faced by rural women and the significant roles which rural women play in the economic survival of their families, including their work in the non-monetized sectors of the economy, and shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of the present Convention to women in rural areas.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, that they participate in and benefit from rural development and, in particular, shall ensure to such women the right:
... omissis ...
(h) To enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to housing, sanitation, electricity and water supply, transport and communications.
8 Signed by the USA on June, 1 1977:
Article 26
The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.
9 Entry into force on November, 16 1999
10 Entry into force on September, 14 2001
Article III :
To achieve the objectives of this Convention, the states parties undertake:
1. To adopt the legislative, social, educational, labor-related, or any other measures needed to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities and to promote their full integration into society, including, but not limited to:
Measures to eliminate discrimination gradually and to promote integration by government authorities and/or private entities in providing or making available goods, services, facilities, programs, and activities such as employment, transportation, communications, housing, recreation, education, sports, law enforcement and administration of justice, and political and administrative activities;
11 See Cabrini example as a potential reference
12 There is a national body of evidence that resident management councils are better property managers than local housing authorities and private management companies.
13
Excerpt from Core document forming part of the reports of States parties UNITED STATES (2006).
