Working on some technocratic fixes for renters in Toronto, but here's something a bit more radical I said out loud in the community, shortly before it was impossible to do so

In the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to own property comes before any mention of the right to adequate housing.

On the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s web page “What are Human Rights?”—this is Canada’s enumeration of the UN declaration—the right to own property comes third, only surpassed by the rights to live free from torture and slavery.

In less than 20 years, Canada’s total outstanding mortgage debt has increased by over 200%, rising by more than a trillion dollars. Banks now lend about as much for mortgages as they do for non-mortgages.

Total mortgage debt is more than 75% of Canadian GDP, which is up over 30 per cent compared to 20 years ago. The growing centrality of real estate to a country’s economy is a global phenomenon, and the main activity of banks in most advanced economies is mortgage lending.

And with an increase in mortgage lending comes an increase in prices. Let me quote from some economists:

"And, of course, as land values rise, rents rise along with them. For the vast majority of homeowners, their home is their largest asset, and rising land prices are seen as generally a good thing, a return on investment."

The common rule of thumb that one should pay 1/3 of their income toward housing is also the percentage that Canada’s national housing agency, the CMHC, defines as “affordable.”

Has anyone ever had a conversation with a landlord where you showed them your tax return or your pay stub and agreed to give them one-third? No, of course not.

Why should a landlord care if you are paying one-third or one-half? Their concern is not your making ends meet, but only “what the market will bear.”

A recent report claims that 44% of Canadian renters are spending more than a third of their income on rent, and 15% are spending at least half of their income on rent. Let me reiterate that this is not a problem for the landlord.

The landlord should say: “Why aren’t all Canadian renters paying at least half of their income to rent?” And it’s a good question, really; it’s seemingly the question that many real estate speculators have finally thought to ask themselves.

Less than one month ago, the Federal government announced the Canada Housing Benefit. It proposes to help some Canadians afford their rentals by offering a benefit—i.e. money— of a few hundred dollars per month.

If you stop and think about this policy for thirty seconds, you will realize that it is simply a direct cash transfer of tax dollars into landlord’s pockets. It’s what one economist called “A bridge to nowhere.”

It’s clear that this policy won’t work or won’t scale without concomitant price controls, but we’re being asked to see this as a win for affordability.

Now, besides the fact that this policy won’t do much other than make sure that some landlords are made whole, the amount of funding is simply too little to help the majority of those in need.

According to one report, 2.5 million households in Canada pay more than 1/3 of their pre-tax income to rent. One reported figure on the reach of the Housing Benefit claimed that 300,000 households would see funds, which amounts to assisting only 12% of households in need.

I couldn’t imagine solving 12% of any problem and expecting congratulations, never mind framing this as any sort of “problem solving” in the first place.

The money, according to reporting, and thus so far as anyone knows, is targeted for—quoting from the article—“survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking, people who are or at risk of being homeless, Indigenous people, seniors and people with disabilities.”

These are fine and laudable targets, but I mention them only to say that these funds probably shouldn’t be thought of as funds for affordable housing generally, but as the barest safety net for those in the most dire of need.

I could go on, but perhaps by now you are wondering: Hey Ben, why did you talk about the UN, and then mortgage debts, and then housing benefits when we’re supposed to be talking about renter’s rights here in our community?

Well, the priority of the right to own property over the right to housing, the growth of mortgage lending and speculation, the role that real estate occupies in our economy, and the too-little, too-late policies of our governments is what's happening in our communities.

RENOVICTION IS AN EFFECT; it is a symptom of a fetishization of capital-based tenure rights and the supremacy of profit over people.

As it currently stands, the state does not see renters as having the same rights to their homes as those who happen to have the money to be quote unquote owners. Many people will rent for their entire lives.

I’ve rented for nearly two decades in this city, and I’ve watched the prospect of home ownership slip away completely. And this would be fine, were it not for the fact that the purchase of a home is also the purchase of security of tenure.

As it currently stands, the actual right to housing in Canada must be purchased. Those who cannot afford it are second-class citizens.

So, where does that leave us, the renters?
The history of agitating for rights always begins with the assumption of the right on the part of the disenfranchised.

We cannot wait for the government to put meat on the bones of their empty theoretic that “housing is a human right,” but must, instead, do so ourselves.

Call your local officials, talk with your neighbours, fight tooth and nail each and every inch with your landlords. Reject the notion that your home is any less yours simply because you don’t “own” it.

You DO have a right to your home, and I encourage us all to support one another, grow our power, and exercise that right.