“We deserve to grow too.”
This quote from Reese, an organizer with Tent City for Community, from a recent episode of Muse News resonated with me. The injustices levied towards unhoused people often go unacknowledged by people like myself who enjoy the privilege of a secure living situation.
Secure housing is the foundation upon which our capacity to function and make decisions is based. It is paramount to human flourishing. I believe that Reese, and those who’ve found themselves in a similar situation, deserve a more equitable policy response for their sake, your sake, and the sake of a sustainable society.
As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we understand the frustrations with the inefficient handling of our healthcare system, I would argue this is impacted by our treatment of unhoused people.
Housing insecurity is directly correlated with both physical and mental health outcomes. The lack of access to housing contributes to the problems in our healthcare system. I rarely see this sentiment in mainstream discourse, but the provision of housing security is healthcare.
In fact, investing in subsidized housing would even decrease spending in other areas of healthcare like emergency services, as well as other sectors such as law enforcement or funding homeless shelters.
As Reese pointed out, homeless shelters are not the answer. Shelters are often a point of alienation and violence for unhoused people and in many places are even avoided by the unhoused population. The answer, provided to us in places like Vienna, Austria, or Finland, is to begin to decommodify our housing sector.
Housing is often used as a financial investment. On a smaller scale, for people’s retirement plans, and on a larger scale individuals and businesses will buy up massive housing stock for profit.
We must decommodify housing. Housing is a necessity just as clean drinking water is and thus its provision needs to be universal. This shouldn’t be a radical opinion, but unfortunately it is.
Given that Canadians on average spend anywhere between 35-50% of their monthly income on housing, if we eliminated (or seriously reduced) that cost, saving for retirement without housing investment would become significantly easier.
What’s been written here is only the tip of the iceberg as far as the benefits of decommodifying housing goes. And if you are still clinging to dominant narratives of “bootstraps” and “personal responsibility” I strongly encourage you to watch the interview with Reese here.
Ultimately, I hope this discussion at least opens the minds of some to the ideas of alternative housing policy that exist outside the contemporary capitalist zeitgeist.
Got an opinion? Submit an Opinion Piece or a Letter to the Editor to the Muse.
