There is a serious equity problem in the allocation of housing assistance resources, particularly social housing.
Posted at 5:00 p.m.
To achieve a more just society, we should ensure that aid goes first to the most disadvantaged according to the seriousness of the situation, and then that everyone in that situation receives equal help: the homeless, women victims of violence, people with physical or mental health problems, households with multiple problems or severe employment constraints, seniors with loss of autonomy, etc.
Housing, a political problem
The housing problem has caused a lot of ink to flow, especially since the pandemic. Many political and media personalities have talked about the housing crisis. Political parties at all levels (municipal, provincial, federal) have different assertions. The parties further to the left of the spectrum present housing as a right, formulating certain commitments in view of the elections. A few days ago, the Popular Action Front in Urban Redevelopment (FRAPRU) launched an awareness campaign that collected 500 signatures, including artists with a strong reputation.
Our politicians often tend to push housing issues when they are prominent enough to affect the middle class. We seek to “retain families”, support the “middle class” in its dream of access to property. High rents are making headlines.
However, the fact that 300,000 Quebec households (1 out of 5 tenants in Montreal) are considered to be in core housing need arouses less of a stir, yet the figure is quite striking. But we resign ourselves a little, arguing that it is a problem related to poverty. And poverty, some have already said, not without irony, that there will always be…
In a context where the private market fails to satisfy this fundamental human need for all, the realization of the right to housing is largely left in the hands of political leaders, masters of the allocation of resources. Since the creation of the Société d’habitation du Québec in the 1960s, housing assistance has received only around 1% of the provincial budget, with rare exceptions. In comparison, more than half of provincial budgets are devoted to health and education, issues affecting the middle and upper classes.
Better target aid
In a text on the targeting of housing policies, I explained how the policies of three provinces, including Quebec, had been refocused in favor of the most vulnerable people. Targeting has been done gradually and almost simultaneously since the 1980s, achieving relative consensus among government actors and even among activists across the country. Housing assistance programs do not support fewer households, on the contrary, but they better target those most in need so that every precious dollar of public funds goes to the right people. That said, I believe that this effort towards a better use of public funds could be extended even further today.
The dozen years that I have spent studying these social housing programs in Canada have revealed several unanticipated conclusions. Public housing HLM, community housing (non-profit organizations and cooperatives), programs focused on direct assistance to households, such as housing allowance, all have a long history. These “tool box” instruments have many weaknesses, but also several strengths that are often unknown to the general public. As a general rule, low-rental housing and housing allowances provide priority support for the most vulnerable households, although some NPOs focus exclusively on women who are victims of violence, homeless people, people with serious health problems, etc. Subsidies to private developers can prove a bit futile if housing affordability is not guaranteed for at least a few decades.
And in addition to the aforementioned government programs, which incur expenses for the public treasury, it is possible to integrate other rather regulatory measures such as the limitation of “renovictions”, the establishment of a register of rents updated annually , pandemic rent freezes, zoning regulations favoring density, etc.
As a society, we need to ask ourselves these questions: who is most at risk of becoming homeless? Who faces the greatest barriers to accessing adequate and affordable housing in the market? These responses should guide the allocation of subsidies and the prioritization of clienteles, not the image or perception of beneficiary groups, whatever they may be.