Here was a description: "In the wake of economic displacement or physical devastation, how are cities rebuilt and for whom? Who has the right to decide? This film symposium explores the idea of 'the right to the city,' the collective right of communities to self-determination and equitable distribution of resources, through documentaries that highlight the organizing responses of communities working to democratize the development of urban space in Chicago and New Orleans."
In other words, I was right in my element.
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (signed in 1948) states:
"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." (full text at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml)
People in this country, the "world champion" of human rights (ahem...) do not have a legal right to housing. We should point that out.
The idea of housing as a human right is certainly a very interesting idea, and one many people would agree with. A lot of what is being talked about now is a new movement (see http://www.urbanreinventors.net/) called The Right to the City. We can think about what a "right" is in two different ways. A right is something you get, but it is also the opportunity to be free from coercion... something most people living in public housing are not afforded. It is certainly a systemic issue with a lot of focus on greed... but it's an issue being tackled in cities all over the States. PHAs (Public Housing Administrations) all over the country are tearing down public housing in order to create "mixed income communities."
This is *nearly* okay, in principle. Save the fact that is is pretty insulting to think that the problems of poverty would be solved if middle class (read: white affluent) values could just "rub off" onto the poor people like catching cooties... the idea is alright on paper. The problem is that these communities are incredibly difficult to get into, they are run by private companies, and there is a fractional percentage of the units available to subsidized renters. In the case of the infamous Cabrini Green Projects in Chicago, the new mixed income communities that were created had just a few units available for the THOUSANDS of families who were displaced when Cabrini was torn down.
Additionally, the practices of mixed-income lending communities are not exactly scrupulous either. There is a mandatory FBI Background check for all subsidized renters, not required of market-rate renters or owners. There are drug tests for subsidized renters. There is no access to the garage in some communities if you are a renter in a public unit. Condo associations are only for owners, but their rules apply to all the renters. If a subsidized renter (or a member of their family) has one lease violation, they are evicted and off of public housing assistance- it's a one strike system. Certainly a lot of disparity.
I'll probably be writing a lot about this in the coming weeks. My biggest question now is regarding the humanity of the people behind this question. How can the mayor stand up and flat out LIE to people about finding them housing? How can the government develop policies that systematically disenfranchise those who need the most support? How can people live with the morality of choosing money over human lives? It's incredibly frustrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment