OHCHR | Home



[pic]

[pic] [pic]

Implementation of the Human Right to Adequate Housing at the Sub-National Level:

A Response to the Questionnaire of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing

October 31, 2014

Introduction

In 2014, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing requested information on the implementation of the human right to housing at the sub-national level. The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, and National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel appreciate the opportunity to provide the response contained herein. Rather than a comprehensive discussion of the role of the federal and subnational governments in implementing the human right to adequate housing in the U.S., the below response offers a compilation of material derived from the Law Center’s 2011 report, Simply Unacceptable: Homelessness & The Human Right to Housing in the United States, with additional materials derived from reports filed by the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute and National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel in conjunction with recent reviews of U.S. compliance with its human rights treaty commitments. We hope this response will provide significant assistance to the Rapporteur in her investigation into subnational responsibility for the human right to housing, and each of the reporting organizations welcomes further conversation with the Rapporteur as she develops her report. We appreciate the opportunity to share this information and to engage with the Special Rapporteur on this important issue.

Explanations

Housing programme (Question A 1 part 1, Questions A 2-5)

The United States federal government is indirectly involved in housing programs. Rather than building or securing affordable public housing itself, the federal government pays for states, local governments, and private organizations to accomplish this task. The federal government requires all entities using federal funds to satisfy certain requirements.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a federal agency created by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, administers federal housing programs.[1]

• The Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8), one of the federal government’s most effective tools to provide housing assistance for very low-income families and individuals,[2] funds housing subsidies administered and paid in part by local housing agencies.[3]

• HUD uses the Public Housing Program, the other most effective federal housing policy for helping low-income persons, to fund local housing authorities that manage housing opportunities for low income families at affordable rents.[4] HUD assists in this management.[5]

• HUD also provides federal funds to state, local, and non-governmental entities that create or manage housing initiatives through the HOME Program and supportive housing programs designed for particular vulnerable groups, such as the elderly (Section 202) and people with disabilities (Section 811).[6]

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program which provides a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal taxes owed on income to corporations and individuals who invest low-income housing. Although the tax credits are federal, each state has an independent agency that allocates its share of the funding raised through the program, under regulations from the IRS.[7]

The federal government addressed homelessness specifically for the first time in the McKinney-Vento Act of 1987, which:

• Created the Federal Interagency Council on Homelessness,

• Established programs across a number of federal agencies, and

• Currently provides funding to individual states to implement services designed to address homelessness, including emergency shelter, transitional housing, and job training.[8]

Funding recipients (states, municipalities, and non-governmental organizations) are responsible for implementing these programs. Recipients must use the funds in a way that satisfies the federal regulations; if they do not, the funding may be revoked.

Subnational implementation

State and local housing programs vary greatly in extent and efficacy. In addition to using federal funds with significant discretion, state and local governments possess and often exercise the authority to implement their own independent housing policies using independent resources. For instance, following federal encouragement, many states and municipalities are adopting a Housing First approach providing homeless persons with stable housing and targeted services without pre-conditions for entry. Utah’s Housing First program has enjoyed enormous success, reducing chronic homelessness by 74% since 2005 and actually saving the city money in the process.[9]

A much larger number of subnational governments, almost exclusively cities, have implemented inclusionary housing laws requiring developers to set aside a percentage of newly constructed units as affordable housing. Because private development creates affordable housing units in this model, the private sector entirely funds inclusionary zoning measures in theory, although many cities use funds to provide developers economic incentives to construct affordable housing.[10] Like Housing First, local governments implement this strategy without oversight or guidance from the federal government.

Other city-implemented affordable housing initiatives, like the micro-housing community in Olympia, Washington, derive funding from a variety of sources. Olympia’s micro-housing program is funded by:

• Washington State’s housing trust fund,

• Federal funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program,

• State document recording fees, and

• Community and individual donors.[11]

The first two of these sources derive from state and federal funds. Washington has the authority to withhold funding from its housing trust fund and the federal government may withhold the CDBG if they find the micro-housing program to be inadequate or improper under relevant regulations.

While Olympia and Utah are success stories, lack of national focus and commitment to housing means the value of the right to housing is drastically different from state to state. For instance, an increasing number of cities have responded to homelessness by criminalizing life-sustaining acts that homeless persons have no choice but to engage in, such as sitting, lying down, or sleeping, rather than addressing homeless persons’ housing needs, or by criminalizing the acts of those who help feed homeless persons.[12] However, some local governments are learning that constructive alternatives such as Utah’s are more effective at reducing homelessness and are adopting similar housing strategies,[13] but they are not compelled to implement housing programs by a federally coordinated initiative. In this sense, the human right to housing exists only when a state or local government chooses to recognize it.

Income Support (Question A 1 Part 2)

The U.S. system for distributing income support works in largely the same way as it does for housing programs. A number of federal programs distribute income support through the states, most notably Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, commonly known as welfare) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as food stamps). TANF provides temporary financial assistance for some needy families,[14] while SNAP guarantees food benefits for any person with a low enough income.[15] Like with federal housing programs, the federal government implements these programs by funding state operations.

Another impactful federal income supplement is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which the federal government implements directly. Through the EITC, the federal government writes checks to people with low or no federal income tax. This program does not depend on states, local governments, or non-governmental organizations to implement. It has also proven to be a powerful tool for fighting poverty; in 2005, the EITC helped move 600,000 children out of poverty.[16]

Security in Tenancy (Question A 1 Part 3)

U.S. federal law directly provides renters and homeowners with some security in tenancy. The federal government enacted some important security in tenancy legislation in the wake of the recent foreclosure crisis. However, there are significant gaps.

- Renters

The federal government enacted the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (PTFA) after the foreclosure crisis. When homeowners lost their homes during the foreclosure crisis, renters living on those properties were suddenly left without homes. They received no notice of their eviction or landlord’s mortgage default and they were not informed of their legal rights as tenants.[17] The PTFA was designed to prevent these evictions by imposing duties on the defaulting landlord’s immediate successor. The law made successors subject to legitimate leases entered into before foreclosure and provided a 90-day notice requirement for evicting inherited tenants.[18] The PTFA is important because it gives renters a significant time frame in which to make financial arrangements for a deposit, find a new residence, or procure legal advice.[19]

State protection of security in tenancy varies, revealing again the lack of a national commitment to these rights. Many states do not require the notification of a tenant of foreclosure proceedings against the landlord, and in more states the renter’s lease automatically terminates upon foreclosure, although some states require some form of notice to trigger automatic termination.[20]

Beyond foreclosure, state and local law varies tremendously with regards to protections tenants receive, with little federal regulation. One exception is for tenants of public housing or Section 8 programs, who do receive federally mandated protections, although they are administered in some variance by the local public housing authorities. These protections only extend to the 4.9 million households in federally funded housing, which is slightly over 10 percent of the 41 million renter households.[21]

- Homeowners

Homeowners enjoy greater federally protected security in tenancy than renters do. Since the foreclosure crisis, the federal government has implemented a number of programs designed to protect homeowners, including the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (HFSHA). These programs offer significant protections, but they have not eliminated predatory lending and brokerage practices that result in foreclosures.

• The EESA provided the Secretary of the Treasury with $700 billion to buy troubled assets and gave the Secretary the power to disburse them. The law also allows the Secretary to modify loans to prevent possible foreclosures. However, the funds have been largely used to make investments in lending institutions rather than to acquire mortgages and prevent foreclosures. Therefore homeowners have felt little relief under the law.[22]

• The HFSHA imposes regulatory restrictions on lending institutions’ ability to foreclose on defaulting homeowners. It requires lending institutions to give the borrower a 30-day notice before recording a Notice of Sale, the start of the foreclosure process, and a 90-day notice before the sale date. The law further requires the foreclosure sale to take place at least 190 days after a default.[23]

Although these regulations have granted homeowners procedural protection, brokers and lenders have still been able to facilitate foreclosures against the laws’ better efforts.[24]

Infrastructure (Question A 1 Part 4)

States are responsible for maintaining most infrastructure in the U.S. One notable exception is the interstate roadways, which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) manages and funds. The FHWA promotes road construction and maintenance by funding state projects and assisting them with research and other non-direct means. This cooperative effort means that local governments differ in their road construction. [25]

State and local governments (and sometimes homeowners associations) are in charge of providing almost all other infrastructure, including police, fire, sanitation, water, and electricity. These services tend to be lacking in low-income urban neighborhoods compared to more affluent urban neighborhoods.[26] Ethnic minorities and rural inhabitants are also far more likely to have insufficient home infrastructure.[27]

Prohibition on Housing Discrimination (Question A 1 Part 5)

There are two main U.S. federal laws aimed at preventing housing discrimination: the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

• The FHA provides that housing providers cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, disability, and familial status.[28] The FHA also prohibits discriminatory advertising, but the prohibition has limited effectiveness because online forums such as Craigslist, , or other “computer services” are exempt from FHA liability.[29] If a lessee has a handicap, the FHA requires the landlord to make “reasonable accommodations.”[30] However, this requirement does not apply to homes that are sold or rented directly by an owner who owns fewer than three single-family homes, or to a housing complex with four or fewer units if the owner occupies one of the units.[31] The FHA incorporates both discriminatory impact as well as discriminatory intent cases, although this standard is currently being reviewed in the Supreme Court, and a DC District Court judge just broke with precedent in 11 of 12 circuits to void HUD’s ability to enforce the FHA through disparate intent.[32]

• The Civil Rights Act of 1866 protects against racial discrimination in a number of areas including housing.[33] The Act is narrower than the FHA in that it only protects against discrimination based on race and color. Furthermore, the Act is violated only when there is discriminatory intent, an element that is almost impossible to prove.[34] However, the Act is broader than the FHA because it is a complete ban on discrimination not limited to dwellings and it has no exceptions.

There are two federal fair housing programs that provide funding to local agencies to fulfill the FHA obligations:

• The Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) provides funding to private organizations that in turn offer community services including education, investigation and enforcement related to alleged discrimination, and dispute resolution.[35] Due to a lack of adequate funding, it generates far more applications for funding than it can accommodate. Despite demand, nearly 25% of private fair housing organizations have either significantly reduced staff size or closed in the past decade due to lack of adequate funding.[36]

• The Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) provides funding to state and local government agencies to enforce state or local fair housing laws that are substantially equivalent to the Fair Housing Act.[37] FHAP agencies are reimbursed based on the number of cases they successfully process.[38]

In addition, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.[39] The Department of Justice (DOJ) may file a lawsuit under ECOA where there is a pattern or practice of discrimination. In cases involving discrimination in home mortgage loans or home improvement loans, the Department may file suit under both the Fair Housing Act and ECOA. Individuals who believe that they have been the victims of any unfair credit transaction involving residential property may also file a complaint with HUD or may file their own lawsuit.[40]

There has been some recent improvement in the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, with both HUD and the DOJ showing a commitment to positive policy changes.[41] However, the large gap between committed violations and reported violations reflects a poorly outfitted enforcement apparatus attributable to underfunded FHIP agencies, and more can be done.[42]

Legal Framework, Obligations, and Compliance (Questions B 1 and 2)

International Law

The U.S. is a signatory to a number of international treaties that recognize the right to adequate housing. While there have been recent rhetorical efforts to recognize human rights and the existence of treaty obligations, there is still much work to be done to produce actual results.

Although the U.S. signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1977, the Senate has never ratified it.[43] The United States did ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1992[44] and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in 1994.[45] Each of these treaties recognizes the right to be free from discrimination, including in housing, on the basis of race, gender, disability, and other statuses. Treaty-monitoring bodies and special rapporteurs have recognized that these treaties also incorporate the need for legal representation to enforce the rights therein.[46] However, Congress ratified both with extensive reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs). These RUDs prevent the treaties’ independent use in court and essentially assume domestic law complies with the treaties and demand no further legislative action.[47]

There has been a recent evolution of government views on its obligations with regard to the human right to housing, beginning with the U.S. report to the Human Rights Council for its 2010 Universal Periodic Review. The government’s report carefully sidesteps recognizing housing and other economic and social rights, stating, “[o]n subjects such as ‘freedom from want,’ the United States has focused on democratic solutions and civil society initiatives while the U.S. courts have defined our federal constitutional obligations narrowly and primarily by focusing on procedural rights to due process and equal protection of the law.”[48] At the U.N. Review in November 2010, the Council made dozens of specific housing, homelessness, and poverty-related recommendations, to which the U.S. government replied with a verbatim repetition of the “democratic solutions” language in its report.[49] Nonetheless, in March 2011, the government accepted a large number of recommendations regarding housing rights and homelessness.[50]

Later that month, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Michael Posner, stated that the U.S. would return to recognizing the full scope of rights promised in President Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech.[51] Although rife with caveats about the U.S.’s committments, Posner’s announcement clearly stated, “we will push back against the fallacy that countries may substitute human rights they like for human rights they dislike, by granting either economic or political rights. To assert that a population is not ‘ready’ for universal human rights is to misunderstand the inherent nature of these rights and the basic obligations of governments.”[52] Equally as important, Posner made clear that human rights have both international and domestic implications, explicitly citing increased funding for homelessness as a relevant representation of our work to promote these rights.[53]

In 2012, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) and DOJ issued Searching Out Solutions: Constructive Alternatives to the Criminalizaition of Homelessness. The report recognized that, in addition to possible violations under the U.S. Constitution, the criminalization of homelessness may implicate our human rights treaty obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture.[54] In 2013, the USICH hosted a blog series entitled “I believe in human rights,” including numerous blogs from government officials and NGOs, and created a page of its website dedicated to human rights and alternatives to the criminalization of homelessness.[55]

State and local officials have also moved towards increased recognition of the human right to housing. For example, Mayor Kitty Piercy of Eugene, Oregon, recently published an article promoting the use of international human rights standards to craft local policy.[56] Mayor Piercy argued that human rights standards could help address homelessness and homeless persons’ rights.[57] This is far from constituting actual policy or enforcement, but it is nonetheless an important incremental move in the right direction.

These recent steps represent a fundamental change in official recognition of the human right to housing, but much remains to be done to make the right to adequate housing real for homeless and poor families whose right to housing is currently violated on a daily basis. Indeed, earlier this year both the Human Rights Committee[58] and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination[59] called for the federal government to take affirmative steps to discontinue funding of communities that continue to criminalize homelessness. Despite HUD’s informal commitment, we have yet to see a direct connection between policy on the ground and the government’s international human rights obligations. However, USICH did publish and promote a blog authored by the Law Center discussing the Concluding Observations, a small step toward increasing awareness of human rights standards and their applicability at the sub-national level.[60]

Constitutional

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to housing.[61] Lindsey v. Normet,[62] a 1974 case often cited for the proposition that there is no right to housing under the U.S. Constitution,[63] addressed whether three provisions of the Oregon Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer Statute violated either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The homeless plaintiffs claimed that the “need for decent shelter” and the “right to retain peaceful possession of one’s home”[64] are fundamental interests for the poor and that a higher level of constitutional scrutiny than minimum rationality was therefore mandated. Writing for the Court, Justice White responded, “the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social and economic ill. We are unable to perceive in that document any constitutional guarantee of access to dwellings of a particular quality, or any recognition of the right of a tenant to occupy the real property of his landlord beyond the term of his lease without the payment of rent or otherwise contrary to the terms of the relevant agreement. Absent constitutional mandate, the assurance of adequate housing and the definition of landlord-tenant relationships are legislative, not judicial, functions.”[65] This language has conventionally been taken to mean that the Constitution does not provide a human right to housing.

National legislative framework or housing strategy

Outside the Constitution and the federal anti-discrimination laws, the only sources of law currently holding local governments accountable for housing rights are conditional funding and state or municipal laws, as discussed above. The federal government recently adopted a uniform financial program which shows progress but is burdened by limitations.

In 2010, the federal government adopted a comprehensive plan to end homelessness for the first time. The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness provides a “reference framework” to allocate and reorganize government resources directed toward the goal of ending most forms of homelessness in the United States within ten years.[66] It provides an overview of homelessness in America and clarifies certain objectives that the federal government considers critical to accomplishing its goal. Some of the objectives set goals for capacity building and developing leadership, while others describe practical solutions directly related to housing, sustainable employment, and access to resources that can help homeless individuals become self-supporting.

While the Plan is comprehensive and generally promotes a progressive approach to eliminating homelessness, it contains no specific "action plan," and it does not explain how the Plan’s objectives will be funded.[67] For example, the Plan does not name any specific dollar amount to be allocated across agencies for the purpose of developing affordable housing or implementing employment training and search strategies.[68] Although the Plan discusses these and other goals, actualizing them unquestionably will require a significant investment of funds not discussed in the Plan. The failure of the Plan to identify funding or a government body accountable for its implementation seriously undermines the Plan’s likelihood of success.[69]

Subnational legislation or housing strategy

States are legally capable of adopting constitutional provisions protecting housing, but so far none have done so. Many states and localities do have housing protections for security of tenure and habitability (housing codes). Housing codes provide a legal basis on which to ensure habitable housing, but the available enforcement measures are generally inadequate. Many municipalities have housing inspection units that are severely understaffed, overworked, and in some cases, corrupt.[70] For example, in Washington, DC, there are only 5 inspectors for a city of over 600,000 and over 139,000 rental units,[71] the same number as Burlington, VT, with a population of 40,000, and approximately 10,000 rental units.[72]

|City |Number of Inspectors |Population |Rental Units |

|Washington, DC |5 |Over 600,000 |Over 139,000 |

|Burlington, VT |5 |Approx. 40,000 |Approx. 10,000 |

Some municipalities provide relocation assistance to tenants evicted when their apartments are deemed uninhabitable.

• In DC, housing providers whose premises are deemed uninhabitable are liable for the moving expenses of their tenants in the amount of $300 per room plus $150 for kitchens and storage areas.[73]

• In Cincinnati, OH, the government provides $350-500 for security deposits and up to $150 in moving expenses for tenants evicted due to code enforcement.[74]

However, the programs that exist are frequently inadequate, and tenants are often threatened with eviction if they attempt to force their landlords to properly maintain their properties.

States and municipalities also frequently have enacted planning requirements for constructing affordable housing. There was a significant movement in the early 2000s to use such requirements to implement local 10-year plans to end homelessness. However, federal planning requirements are largely toothless, with no requirement to dedicate adequate funding toward meeting the plans’ goals or accountability as those goals are not met.

Only one state, New Jersey, recognizes a constitutional protection against housing discrimination and right to affordable housing.[75] Faced with exclusionary zoning measures that imposed a de facto income requirement for housing within some municipalities, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared a right to affordable housing throughout the state.[76] The court declared that the availability of affordable housing benefits low-income families statewide by allowing them to live close to their workplace or live where they choose.[77] While legal recognition of the right to affordable housing may have reduced racial segregation in New Jersey,[78] it has not guaranteed the right in practice. New Jersey allows for regional contribution agreements in lieu of actually constructing affordable housing, an option many developers took after New Jersey’s housing boom in the 1980s cooled.[79] Even when the housing market thrived, low-income families did not benefit from the right.[80]

Compliance

On the positive side, current government programs serve a vitally important role in helping some inadequately housed and homeless families and individuals. With respect to adequate housing as defined under the ICESCR, government programs have helped some segments of the target population[81] receive or “access” “housing resources.”[82] Further, the programs arguably represent “policy and legislative recognition” of some “constituent aspects of the right [to adequate housing],”[83] and thus exhibit “tak[ing] steps” towards a “progressive” realization of this right. In some limited ways, homeless individuals and families have been able to make “claim[s] or demand[s]… upon society” for fulfillment of their right to housing.[84] Members of certain defined groups – low-income families, the elderly and the disabled – can make claims for the “provision of or access to housing resources,”[85] although their claims might not be honored because the programs are not adequately funded. Most cities have long waiting lists for assistance, typically 5 years.[86] Many have chosen to close their waiting lists due to excess demand.[87] Finally, many of the programs address concerns of adequacy under the seven-prong definition in General Comment No. 4. They tend to focus in particular on the prong of “affordability,” which has been widely noted as a special concern in U.S. housing markets.[88]

However, these programs fall short of fulfilling the right to housing in important ways. First, they do not represent steps taken to the “maximum of available resources” to realize the right by “all appropriate means.”[89] These terms are imprecise because they are context-driven and written in generalized language; nevertheless, they remain useful benchmarks. Given the U.S.’s wealth, the “maximum of available resources” should be more than sufficient to adequately finance these programs. In many government housing programs, however, demand well exceeds the allocated funding.[90]

Even in the area of federal housing subsidies, only a relatively small amount goes toward low-income housing. While the U.S. expends more than $70 billion annually on the mortgage income tax deduction, available to all homeowners, with 77% of its benefit going to predominantly white households with incomes over $100,000/year, who do not face rent burdens,[91] the U.S. only appropriates $44.8 billion to the entire HUD budget directed at low-income populations, where only 25% of the eligible renter households receive assistance.[92] Additionally, since the late 1970s, the HUD budget dedicated to low-income rental assistance has been cut by more than 53%, leading to reductions in the stock of publicly assisted housing by approximately 10,000 units per year.[93]

Similarly, these programs do not “ensure everyone has access to housing resources” [emphasis added].[94] Although this requirement is subject to “progressive” fulfillment,[95] within the context of abundant resources, the qualification should be a minor one. The limitation on eligibility for assistance to certain groups of people in need is also inconsistent with universal access. The Public Housing program, for example, is limited to low-income families, elderly, and disabled individuals. Further, not all who are eligible are aided.

Finally, and perhaps most obviously, these programs do not provide that members of society should be able to make a “claim or demand … upon society for provision of or access to housing resources.”[96] First of all, as noted in the preceding paragraph, not all of the homeless or inadequately housed can make any demand on society. Most individuals are legally excluded from making such demands. Second, the value of such a claim on society will be determined by the remedy society provides for that claim. The remedy here is often inadequate or very slow in coming by virtue of the limited resources committed to these programs. This effectively prevents many families from realizing their demands. Third, as the ability to make these demands is created by federal program, rather than statute or constitution, it can be more readily abrogated. That which can be so readily extinguished by administrative fiat arguably does not rise to the level of a “right,” which is in part defined by its theoretical (although not practical) inalienability.

One additional issue must be considered when weighing compliance: regardless of the strength of federal and state laws protecting security of tenure and/or prohibiting discrimination, such laws carry little weight in practice if not backed by the assistance of counsel to make enforcement meaningful. Although indigent persons have a constitutional right to legal representation in criminal cases where the person’s liberty is in jeopardy,[97] no federal or state court has recognized a right to counsel in housing matters; in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has said there is a presumption against appointment of counsel where physical liberty is not at stake.[98] And no federal or state legislation guarantees counsel for indigent tenants and homeowners to enforce housing laws.[99]

Not only is there an absence of a right to counsel, but the existing legal aid infrastructure cannot come close to meeting the demand.[100] Moreover, unrepresented indigent homeowners and tenants typically face opponents who are represented by counsel, causing a power imbalance that further compromises enforceability.[101]

Reporting and Implementing (Question B 3)

The federal government does not currently coordinate any efforts among subnational governments to report to the United Nations or implement its recommendations. Furthermore, the United States lacks a National Human Rights Institution.

Reporting

There is currently no federal focal point to liaise with subnational governments around treaty reporting. There is also no mandatory reporting requirement for state and local governments to contribute to the United States government’s periodic reports to treaty bodies. Moreover, with no National Human Rights Institution, the United States lacks a central human rights monitoring body tasked with ensuring human rights reporting and implementation at the subnational level.

The federal government has conducted limited outreach to state and local officials to obtain information for treaty reporting, using letters seeking voluntary reporting from governors and state and local human rights commissions.[102] Responses to those requests have not been publicized, so it is unclear how comprehensive the responses might have been.

The United States has recently included state and local officials in its delegations to human rights treaty reviews. Attorney General Jim Hood of Mississippi and Mayor Ralph Becker of Salt Lake City, Utah attended the March 2014 review by the U.N. Human Rights Committee. Attorney General Dustin McDaniel of Arkansas and Mayor William Bell of Birmingham, Alabama attended the August 2014 review by the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. These state and local officials highlighted efforts in their jurisdictions to address human rights concerns, including, in particular, initiatives supported by the federal government. For the 2010 Universal Periodic Review of the United States, Robin Toma, Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations, participated alongside the United States government delegation.[103]

A few state and local governments have sought, of their own initiative, to report to U.N. human rights treaty bodies, with limited effect. For example:

• In 2009, the City of Berkeley, California, passed a resolution that enables the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission (“BPJC”) to prepare reports regarding Berkeley’s compliance with U.N. human rights treaties.[104] According to the resolution, once approved by the City Council, the reports should be submitted to the relevant treaty bodies, as well as the U.S. State Department. In October 2014, the Berkeley City Council, for the first time, approved two such reports: one for the U.S. review under the ICCPR, which had already taken place in March 2014, and one for the U.S. review under the CAT, scheduled to take place in November 2014. The BPJC has submitted the CAT report, which addresses issues of criminalization of homelessness, to the Committee Against Torture. The BPJC may unilaterally circulate the ICCPR report—which addresses housing and homelessness—even though that report was not submitted in time for the review by the Human Rights Committee.

• In 2010, the State of California adopted a resolution, ACR 129, aimed at raising awareness of ratified treaties and facilitating statewide reporting. ACR 129 calls on the California Attorney General to prepare templates that cities, counties and state agencies can use to assess their own compliance with human rights treaties ratified by the United States.[105] To date, the California Attorney General has not taken steps to implement the resolution, citing lack of funding.[106] ACR 129—touted in the U.S. government report to the Human Rights Committee in 2011[107]—has not led to any change in practice.

• In 2013, the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women (San Francisco, California) submitted a report to the Human Rights Committee regarding the U.S. review under the ICCPR, addressing issues of sex-based discrimination in the workplace.[108]

As noted above, these state and local reporting efforts are purely voluntary and are in no way coordinated by the federal government. Treaty bodies review the reports subnational government entities submit in the same way as reports that non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions submit, rather than as part of the official government report.

Implementing Recommendations

There is no coordinated federal effort to engage state and local actors in human rights monitoring or implementation, nor is there a federal mechanism or focal point to share U.N. recommendations following the treaty reviews or to develop guidance for sub-national governments on applicable human rights standards. As a result, many state and local governments fail to understand and incorporate human rights into local policy and practice. Recognizing that the lack of coordination leads to gaps in state and local compliance with human rights—directly impacting local communities—U.N. experts have consistently emphasized the need for a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to human rights within the United States.

Despite this lack of federal guidance or coordination, there appears to be significant and increasing interest among state and local governments in implementing human rights, including the right to adequate housing. There have been several innovative efforts to do so, particularly among state and local human rights and human relations commissions. There are over 150 such state and local civil and human rights agencies (“Human Rights Agencies”), mandated by state, county, or city governments to enforce human and civil rights and/or to conduct research, training and public education and issue policy recommendations on human intergroup relations and civil and human rights.

Human Rights Agencies seek, among other things, to prevent housing discrimination, particularly against immigrants and other vulnerable communities, and institute fair housing policies and practices. Human Rights Agencies can receive grants from HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program to conduct fair housing education and outreach. Human Rights Agencies and other state and local decision-makers strive to eliminate housing discrimination through proactive education and outreach, through including communities in developing solutions, and through hearings, community forums, and task forces.

Moreover, some localities are adopting a human rights-based approach to local housing policy, recognizing that homelessness and inadequate housing disproportionately affect people of color, members of the LGBT community, the elderly, and immigrants:

• The Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) is a state agency that implements the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in multiple areas including public accommodations. The IDHR conducts substantial outreach to raise awareness of its protection of LGBT rights in housing. To this end, the IDHR has collaborated with the Assistant Secretary of the HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. In June 2012, they sent a joint letter to LGBT news outlets describing federal and local legal protections and noting that discrimination continues despite the laws and regulations in place. The letter underscores the importance of federal and local partnerships in proactively addressing the existing gaps in protection. Notably, the IDHR has also served as a bridge between the U.N. and local decisionmakers. In 2009, the Department hosted the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, convening a dialogue with local officials on fair housing and housing choice programs.[109]

• The San Francisco Human Rights Commission (the “S.F. Commission”) is mandated to mediate intergroup tensions and enforce the city’s local anti-discrimination laws, including fair housing provisions. In 2005, the S.F. Commission created the Native American Task Force (“NATF”). The NATF surveyed Native American communities for a year, then held a hearing on specific community concerns, including accessible and adequate housing. This culminated in a report recommending that the city create more affordable, culturally-competent housing, and more funding to mitigate the high number of Native American homeless persons.[110]

• In 2007, the Washington State Human Rights Commission, which is charged with enforcing the state’s human rights statute, embarked on a project to document, analyze and address the severe lack of housing for farm workers in the state. The Commission primarily explored the issue through the lens of discrimination against farm workers on the bases of race and national origin, drawing on its mandate to enforce prohibitions against such discrimination contained in the state’s anti-discrimination statute and federal fair housing laws. In a report detailing its findings and recommendations for resolving the housing crisis, the Commission discussed the relevant domestic legal standards and also drew on international human rights principles.[111]

• In 2009, the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission in Los Angeles, California, embarked on a campaign to address rising violence against people who are homeless. Drawing on international human rights standards regarding shelter and housing, the campaign aimed to raise awareness by encouraging law enforcement agencies to collect relevant data and by engaging in public education through youth initiatives, informational materials, websites, and curricula highlighting the fundamental human rights of the homeless that require attention and protection, such as the right to housing.

• In 2012, the International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies (IAOHRA), a body consisting mostly of U.S. local human rights commissions like those discussed above, passed a resolution encouraging its members to implement international human rights, including the right to housing, and specifically to ask its local members to endorse anti-criminalization efforts, such as homeless bills of rights.[112]

Other state and local decision-makers have also addressed the right to adequate housing. For example, cities and counties have adopted local resolutions to expand the availability of affordable and accessible housing:

• Eugene, Oregon’s Mayor and City Council: At the end of 2011, the Mayor and City Council created the Opportunity Eugene Community Task Force on Homelessness, comprised of city councilors, city staff, local service providers, and advocacy groups, as well as community members. The Task Force researched and developed strategies and recommendations to remedy the issue of homelessness in the city, proclaiming “housing is a basic human right.”[113] In 2012, the Task Force completed its final report, with recommendations to ensure that homeless persons are treated with dignity.[114] The report was submitted to the Mayor and City Council.

• Madison, Wisconsin City Council & Dane County Board of Supervisors: Two localities in the state of Wisconsin have recently passed resolutions recognizing housing as a human right and prioritizing efforts to meet the basic need for housing.

o In 2011, the Madison City Council passed a resolution highlighting the prevalence of homelessness and the interrelated nature of homelessness, joblessness, and poverty, conditions that disproportionately affect minorities. The resolution underscored that Madison has an obligation to promote fair housing and that several treaties ratified by the United States, including the ICCPR, require the city to eliminate policies with a racially discriminatory effect.[115] The resolution calls for an assessment of affordable and accessible housing needs, the creation of a staff position to oversee the assessment, and a long term housing strategy. It also calls for public funds to increase affordable and available housing.[116]

o Building on the City Council’s effort, the Board of Supervisors of Dane County, which encompasses Madison, passed a ‘housing is a human right’ resolution in 2012. This resolution also prioritizes providing shelter. It sets out a concrete goal for the county: a local housing plan that aims to improve the availability of adequate housing, a reduction in the number of homeless children in local schools, and prevention of the criminalization of homelessness.[117] A body comprised of local officials and residents is charged with implementing the housing plan. To ensure accurate data is available, the resolution calls for an annual assessment of housing needs.

In addition, three states and one city have enacted Homeless Bill of Rights legislation.[118] Other states are considering similar legislation, and advocacy groups are actively promoting such initiatives with an expanded focus on rights.[119] Although these bills of rights do not expressly include the right to housing, they represent a positive step towards recognizing rights such as freedom of movement and the right to vote and to emergency medical care.[120] The bills that have passed, while judicially enforceable, are limited to non-discrimination against homeless persons in existing rights, and no court has yet tested the laws. However, advocates are hopeful that these initial efforts will lay the basis for more substantive legislation in the future.

While these state and local efforts are encouraging, they remain ad hoc, patchwork, and vulnerable to elimination through budget cuts.

Accountability (Question B 4)

As noted above, the United States does not currently have a National Human Rights Institution, nor is there any other federal focal point, ombudsman, or other federal office responsible for coordinating and overseeing the implementation of human rights obligations throughout the United States, particularly among subnational governments.

The federal government currently does play an important role in facilitating and supporting Human Rights Agencies in their efforts to enforce and monitor compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, including those that prohibit discrimination in housing. For example, through its Fair Housing Initiatives Program, HUD provides grants to state commissions to conduct fair housing education and outreach.

However, no such mechanism currently exists to support state and local government actors in implementing their international human rights obligations with respect to adequate housing. Furthermore, existing efforts are specific to eliminating discrimination and do not act to guarantee the right to adequate housing more broadly. Although the Fair Housing Initiatives Program has been effective, its scope is limited.

Challenges and Recommendations (Question B 5)

The three most significant challenges to effective accountability of subnational governments for implementing human rights standards, including the right to adequate housing, in the U.S. are:

• The lack of knowledge among state and local officials of the human rights treaties the U.S. has ratified and their obligations with respect to treaty implementation and human rights compliance more generally;

• Resource and staffing constraints at the state and local level, which further impede the promotion and protection of human rights; and

• The lack of an institutionalized approach to human rights implementation at the federal level, specifically lack of federal coordination of and support for human rights education, monitoring, and implementation at the subnational level.

In response to these challenges, we recommend that the U.S. federal government:

• Provide education and training to state and local agencies and officials on their human rights obligations. This should include federal dissemination of Concluding Observations issued by the U.N. treaty bodies to relevant state and local officials within one year of treaty body reviews, along with appropriate guidance from the federal government on how the recommendations relate to state and local policy and effective human rights implementation.

• Ensure dedicated federal staff to serve as focal points for coordinating and liaising with state and local actors regarding human rights reporting and implementation. These staff should help state and local governments identify and develop effective practices. The federal staff should also communicate recommendations from international bodies to state and local governments.

• Establish institutionalized, transparent and effective mechanisms to coordinate with state and local officials to ensure comprehensive monitoring and implementation of international human rights standards at the federal, state and local levels, such as a National Human Rights Institution.

• Provide state and local governments with the resources necessary to engage in civil and human rights implementation and compliance, including grants to Human Rights Agencies, to ensure they have the capability to undertake human rights education, monitoring, reporting, and implementation.

• Introduce and support legislation providing a right to counsel in cases implicating the right to adequate housing for federally-subsidized housing, and support and coordinate efforts to establish a right to counsel in housing cases at the state and local level.

• Affirmatively recognize and address adequate housing as a human right, and assist state and local governments in creating accountability mechanisms to measure progress in implementing the right.

-----------------------

[1] 42 U.S.C. § 3532 (2012).

[2] Peter Edelman, So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America 75 (2012).

[3] U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development [hereinafter “HUD”], Housing Choice Voucher Program Fact Sheet, at (accessed October 7, 2014).

[4] Edelman, supra note 2, at 75.

[5] HUD, HUD’s Public Housing Program, at (accessed October 7, 2014).

[6] See National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, “Simply Unacceptable”: Homelessness and the Human Right to Housing in the United States 29-30 (2011), at .

[7] Ed Gramlich, Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, in National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014 Advocates Guide 254 (2014), .

[8] See id. at 30.

[9] See, e.g., Christopher Smart, Utah Praised for its Initiative to End Chronic Homelessness, Salt Lake Tribune (October 8, 2014), available at ; National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, No Safe Place 30 (2014), available at .

[10] For more about inclusionary housing, see, e.g., See Seth Ullman, Michael Freedman-Schnapp, & Brad Lander, Inclusionary Zoning in New York City: The Performance of New York City’s Designated Areas Inclusionary Housing Program Since Its Launch in 2005, 2, available at ; Nico Calavita, Kenneth Grimes, & Alan Mallach, Inclusionary Zoning in California and New Jersey: A Comparative Analysis 125-135 (1997), available at .

[11] For more information on the micro-housing program, see “Simply Unacceptable,” supra note 6, at 36.

[12] See No Safe Place, supra note 9, at 16-18, 19, 22.

[13] See Smart, supra note 9.

[14] See Office of Family Assistance, About TANF, available at (accessed October 21, 2014).

[15] See United States Department of Agriculture: Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, available at (accessed October 21, 2014).

[16] See Edelman, supra note 2, at 71, 82; EITC Home Page, IRS, available at (accessed October 14, 2014).

[17] See Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, Public Law 111-22 (May 20, 2009); “Simply Unacceptable”, supra note 6, at 34-35.

[18] See Id. at 35; Protecting Tenants At Foreclosure Act of 2009: Comptroller’s Handbook 1-2 (2010), available at .

[19] See “Simply Unacceptable”, supra note 6, at 35.

[20] See Id. at 35.

[21] Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, National and State Housing Data Fact Sheets (Mar. 10, 2014), .

[22] See Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Division A of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Public Law 110-343 (October 3, 2008); Id. at 37-38.

[23] See Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Public Law 111-22 (May 20, 2009); “Simply Unacceptable”, supra note 6, at 38.

[24] See “Simply Unacceptable”, supra note 6 at 39.

[25] See United States Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, About, available at .

[26] See Gary W. Evans & Elyse Kantrowitz, Socioeconomic Status and Health: The Potential Role of Environmental Risk Exposure, 23 Ann. Rev. Pub. Health 303, 318 (2002).

[27] See “Simply Unacceptable”, supra note 6 at 47-48.

[28] 42 U.S.C. §3604 (2012).

[29] See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. , LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 47 U.S.C. §230 (computer services that rely on user-generated content are immune from liability under the FHA).

[30] 42 U.S.C. §3604(f) (2012).

[31] 42 U.S.C. §3603(b) (2012) (commonly known as the “Miss Murphy exception”).

[32]See Texas Dep. Of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, No. 12-1371, 2014 WL 4916193 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2014); American Insurance Association v. U.S. Dep. Of Housing & Urban Dev., Case 1:13-cv-00966-RJL, (D.C. Nov. 3, 2014).

[33] 42 U.S.C. §1981 (2012).

[34] See General Bldg. Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania 458 U.S. 375 (1982).

[35] Advocates Guide, supra note 7, at 222.

[36] National Fair Housing Alliance, A Step in the Right Direction 2010 Fair Housing Trends Report 17, May 16, 2010 [hereinafter Step in the Right Direction].

[37] Advocates Guide, supra note 7, at 223.

[38] Id.

[39] 15 U.S.C. §1691 et seq.

[40] U.S. Dept. of Justice, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (2014), .

[41] National Fair Housing Alliance, Fair Housing Trends Report 2o14, (2014), .

[42] Advocates Guide, supra note 7, at 224-5.

[43] Ratification/Signature Status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, at . (Under the U.S. Constitution, the President signs treaties, and the Senate must ratify them by a 2/3 vote. See U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2.)

[44] U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 138 Cong. Rec. S4781-01 (daily ed., April 2, 1992); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976 (Article 2(1): “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”) [hereinafter ICCPR].

[45] U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 140 Cong. Rec. S7634-02 (daily ed., June 24, 1994); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, entered into force Jan. 4, 1969 (Article 5(e)(i): In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:… (e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:… (iii) The right to housing…”) [hereinafter ICERD].

[46] Concluding Observations – United States of America, U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ¶22, U.N. Doc. CERD//C/USA/CO/7-9 (August 29, 2014) (“The Committee ... recommends that the State party allocate sufficient resources to ensure effective access to legal representation for indigent persons belonging to racial and ethnic minorities in civil proceedings, particularly with regard to proceedings that have serious consequences for their security and stability, such as evictions [and] foreclosures…”); Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, Raquel Rolnik, ¶80, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/25/54 (Dec. 30, 2013) (“[t]he urban poor face significant barriers in accessing justice, owing to, inter alia...prohibitive costs of legal representation... States should take all measures to remove these barriers and ensure that the urban poor can access effective remedies through a range of judicial and administrative mechanisms... States should establish, fund and enable legal aid and assistance for the urban poor, in order to address power asymmetries that pervade conflicts over land and obstruct access to justice.”)

[47] See id.

[48] Report of the United States of America Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review, 2010, at para. 67. [hereinafter U.S. UPR Report].

[49] Minutes from the U.S. Universal Periodic Review (Nov. 5, 2011), on file with author.

[50] Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, United States of America, Addendum, A/HRC/16/11/Add.1 (2011), at paras. 6, 19.

[51] Asst. Sec. of State for Democracy, Human Rights & Labor, Michael Posner, “The Four Freedoms Turns 708,” (March 24, 2011).

[52] Id.

[53] Id., stating, “Our government’s commitment to provide for the basic social and economic needs of our people is clear and it reflects the will of the American people. They ask us to provide shelter for the destitute…and we do… In the wake of the housing crisis, last year the federal government committed almost $4 billion to target homelessness.”

[54] Interagency Council on Homelessness, Searching out Solutions: Constructive Alternatives to the Criminalization of Homelessness 8 (2012) (USICH and the Access to Justice Initiative of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice, with support from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, convened a summit to gather information for this report).

[55] See .

[56] Kitty Piercy, Crafting Innovative Anti-Discrimination Policies Using Human Rights, U.S. Mayor 3 (2014), available at .

[57] See Eric Tars, Building Momentum to Abolish Criminalization of Homelessness, USICH Blog (2014) available at .

[58] U.N. Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth report of the United States of America, ¶ 19, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/4 (2014).

[59] Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations, CERD/C/USA/CO/7-9, para. 12, Aug. 29, 2014.

[60] See Eric Tars, supra note 56.

[61] The Supreme Court has found a number of rights to be implicit in the Constitution, including the “right to privacy” and the “right to travel.” Noted in Alexander Tseisis, Eliminating the Destitution of America’s Homeless: A Fair, Federal Approach, 10 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev., 103, 122–23 (2000).

[62] Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972).

[63] Id.

[64] Id. at 73.

[65] Id. at 74.

[66] U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness: Amendment 2012 8-9 (2012)..

[67] Id.

[68] Id.

[69] Id.

[70] See, e.g. William K. Rashbaum, Inspector Says He Faked Data in New York Building Tests, N.Y. Times, Apr. 26, 2010, available at (last visited Feb. 28, 2011).

[71] Peter A. Tatian, Renters and Foreclosure in Washington, DC, 9 (2010).

[72] Steven Norman, email to Housing Justice Network list, Feb. 28, 2011, on file with author; Burlington Dept. of Code Enforcement, Code Enforcement, available at (last visited Feb.28, 2011).

[73] District of Columbia, Ch. 14-44; D.C. Code §42-3507.03 (2006).

[74] City of Cincinnati, Normal Code Program Emergency Relocation Assistance Payments (2008).

[75] See Mount Laurel II, 456 A.2d 390 (N.J. 1983).

[76] Id.

[77] Id.

[78] Compare David L. Krip, Here Comes the Neighborhood, New York Times (October 19, 2013), available at (finding that the Mount Laurel II decision reduced segregation, noting that Mount Laurel, NJ, built 140 units of affordable housing in 2000) with Damiano Sasso, The Effect of the Mount Laurel Decision on Segregation by Race, Income, and Poverty Status 10-12 (2004) available at (finding that the Mount Laurel II decision did little to reduce racial and economic segregation, especially in the 1990s).

[79] See Nico Calavita, Kenneth Grimes, & Alan Mallach, Inclusionary Zoning in California and New Jersey: A Comparative Analysis 125-135 (1997).

[80] See Id. (noting that families with incomes below 40% of the median income for families of that size did not benefit from Mount Laurel II).

[81] General Comment 4, The right to adequate housing (Sixth session, 1991), U.N. Doc. E/1992/23, annex III at 114 (1991), reprinted in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 18 (2003), , at paras. 11-17.

[82] Id.

[83] Id. section (c).

[84] Id. section (a).

[85] Id.

[86] Douglas Rice and Barbara Sard, The Effects of the Federal Budget Squeeze on Low-Income Housing Assistance, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 10 (February 1, 2007) [hereinafter Budget Squeeze].

[87] The United States Conference of Mayors, Hunger and Homelessness Survey: a Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities, 22-23 (2008).

[88] See Section V infra, on Affordability in the U.S.

[89] ICESCR, supra note 44, Article 2(1). Although the U.S. has not ratified the ICESCR, this document is still useful as an interpretive guide to the parameters of the “right to adequate housing.”

[90] Budget Squeeze, supra, note 155 at 10.

[91] Will Fischer and Chye-Ching Huang, Mortgage Interest Deduction Is Ripe for Reform, Center for Budget & Policy Priorities, June 25, 2013, .

[92] Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation’s Housing (June 2013), ; Executive Office of the President of the United States, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government 123 (2012).

[93] Western Regional Advocacy Project, Without Housing: Decades of Federal Housing Cutbacks, Massive Homelessness, and Policy Failures 20 (2010); National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2014: 25-Years Later, the Affordable Housing Crisis Continues 4 (2014).

[94] Housing Rapporteur, supra note 38, at section (a).

[95] ICESCR, supra note 44, at article 2(1).

[96] Housing Rapporteur, supra note 38 [emphasis added].

[97] Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

[98] See “Simply Unacceptable”, supra note 6, at 40; Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981).

[99] The Fair Housing Act permits, but does not require, courts to appoint counsel when a private individual seeks to enforce FHA rights. 42 U.S.C. 3613(b). A number of states have laws paralleling the FHA that similarly permit but do not require the appointment of attorneys. See e.g. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41-1491.32 (“On application by a person alleging a discriminatory housing practice or by a person against whom a discriminatory housing practice is alleged, the superior court may appoint an attorney for the person”); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-307(9.5) (“Upon application by a person alleging a discriminatory housing practice under section 24-34-502 or a person against whom such a practice is alleged, the court may appoint an attorney for such person . . . if in the opinion of the court such person is financially unable to bear the costs of such action.”

[100] See Alan Housman, Civil Legal Aid in the United States: An Update for 2007, 9 (Center on Law and Social Policy, August 22, 2007) (finding that fewer than 20% of indigent civil litigants’ needs are met);

[101] See Chester Hartman & David Robinson, Evictions: The Hidden Housing Problem, 14 Housing Pol’y Debate 461, 477 (2003) (“Numerous studies demonstrate that most tenants do not have lawyers, while most landlords do, and that tenants who have representation fare much better in court than those who do not (Scherer 1988). For New York City, 11.9 percent of tenants, as opposed to 97.6 percent of landlords, were represented in eviction proceedings …”))

[102] Copies of the letters are available on the State Department’s website at . See “Memoranda Regarding U.S. Human Rights Treaty Reports” and “Other Letters to State/Local/Insular/Tribal Governments Regarding U.S. Human Rights Treaty Reports.”

[103] Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: United States of America, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/16/11 (Jan. 4, 2011).

[104] See Submission from Eric Brenman, Secretary, City of Berkeley Peace and Justice Comm’n, to Mayor and Members of City Council (Sept. 29, 2009), .

[105] See Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 129, Cal. Legislature, Legislative Counsel’s Digest (2010), available at . See also Columbia Law Sch. Human Rights Inst., Bringing Human Rights Home: How State and Local Governments Can Use Human Rights to Advance Local Policy 20-21 (2012), available at ; Marjorie Cohn, California Assembly Votes to Report on Human Rights to U.N. Committees, Huffington Post (Aug. 19, 2010), .

[106] E-mail from Edward Hasbrouck, The Identity Project, to JoAnn Kamuf Ward, Assoc. Dir., Human Rights in the U.S. Project, Columbia Law Sch. Human Rights Inst. (Mar. 15, 2013).

[107] See U.S. Dep’t of State, Common Core Document of the United States of America: Submitted With the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ¶ 133 (Dec. 30, 2011), available at .

[108] See City and County of San Francisco, Department on the Status of Women, Report on Sex-Based Discrimination in the American Workplace Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Oct. 2013), available at .

[109] Rocco J. Claps, Director, Ill. Dep’t of Human Rights, Submission by the Illinois Department of Human Rights for the United States Department of State Concerning Its Report to the United Nations on the Implementation of U.S. Obligations Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (June 10, 2013) (on file with Columbia Law Sc. Human Rights Inst.).

[110] S.F. Human Rights Comm’n, Discrimination by Omission: Issues of Concern for Native Americans in San Francisco 21 (2007), available at .

[111] Washington State Human Rights Commission, Farm Worker Housing and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (2007), available at .

[112] International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies, Resoltion #2: International Human Rights 3-4 (2013), available at .

[113] Opportunity Eugene Task Force, Opportunity Eugene: A Community Task Force on Homelessness Final Report and Recommendations (2012), available at .

[114] Id. The six recommendations were: 1) identify and establish safe and secure sites for the homeless; 2) create and support day use community centers; 3) improve healthcare access for the homeless; 4) continue and expand existing services to the homeless; 5) improve laws and ordinances that criminalize and block homeless individuals; and 6) create a commission to continue to explore homelessness solutions. Id.at 1-4.

[115] City of Madison Res. on Housing as A Human Right, Legislative File 23825 (Version 1) (Sept. 6, 2011), available at .

[116] Id. See also Pat Schneider, Grass Roots: Madison Recognizes Housing as a Human Right, The Cap Times, Dec. 2, 2011, .

[117] Dane County Recognizes Housing As A Human Right, Res. 292, 11-12. See Dane County Board of Supervisors Zoning & Land Regulation Comm. Work Meeting Agenda (June 12, 2012) at 103-04 for the resolution text, .

[118] See National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, From Wrongs to Rights: The Case ror Homeless Bill of Rights Legislation 18 (2011), available at ; Cynthia Boyd, Duluth’s New Tool to Fight Homelessness: A Bill of Rights, Minn Post (2014), available at munity-sketchbook/2014/01/duluth-s-new-tool-fight-homelessness-bill-rights. The states that have passed Homeless Bills of Rights are Rhode Island, Illinois, and Connecticut. The City is Duluth, Minnesota.

[119] See Western Regional Advocacy Project Homeless, Homeless Bill of Rigths Campaign Manual 4, (2014) available at .

[120] See From Wrongs to Rights, supra note 115, at 7.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download