Housing as a Human Right
The recent fervour over investment funds and Irish property crops up every once in a while. A longstanding practice that leaves us righteously indignant. Why, when there is such a shortage of accommodation, do we allow for SOMEONE ELSE to buy houses in Ireland? There is a criminal lack of housing but this kind of tribalism won’t solve it.
“Housing is a basic human right!”
“Housing should be in the constitution!”
These kinds of ideas are seemingly in vogue and may sound idyllic, but they are morally wrong and not desirable in the least.
Firstly, my solution to the housing crisis is to let builders build, be they developers or individuals. Let them build whatever they choose on whichever land belongs to them. How can we justify nimbyism when so many people are left homeless? How can we say our current housing policy is working, that our ‘Minister for Housing’ is in any way fulfilling the brief? All of that should be scrapped as inhumane.
How many times do we see apartment buildings blocked because of this or that subjective rationale? This happens across the political spectrum. We ban co-living when people in Dublin currently share bedrooms with strangers. I would rather take the kitchenette.
My opinion is that investor funds are a good thing. Housing developments in Ireland are profitable because (artificially) they are so difficult to build and demand is sky high. Investor funds are obligated to chase profit to please their shareholders. Developers are obligated to sell quickly for their own shareholders. The faster they can sell an entire development, the faster they can build a new one. They shouldn’t be left to handle the management and rental, that’s not their forte.
As consumers, we should have a choice of housing available. Property owners should be competing for our business by offering services we want. All of this would lead to extreme rationality in the housing market. Developers consciously maximising profit by providing the best value. Consumers being selective over where and how they want to live, and getting the added self-esteem from earning the right to live there.
This system would lead to some abrupt changes of the landscape in the short term, but over the long run it would achieve equilibrium between a market of buyers and sellers. It would be transformative for our cities, but that’s what they need. The market would be driven by the values of the consumer. A development might have chopped down some trees but they have promised to plant new ones, so they will get my business. This is one extremely simple example but it can be revamped ad infinitum. The possibilities are endless.
What would that do to the quality of life for all people? How would that affect family planning if you didn’t have to worry about sharing a house with others? How much collective stress could be dissipated at once?
The idea then of housing as a human right would lead to the exact opposite of rationality. When people turn 18, are they guaranteed a house? At birth then, babies are added to the housing register. You would be given ‘an house’ when you come of age. I don’t know whether you will have a say in the design or the location, but I guess you should be grateful.
If you want to move in with a partner, maybe you have to give your house up to someone else. Should things turn rocky, It would be difficult to end the relationship (as it can be right now) while you waited for another home to become available. The state would have little consideration for environmental impacts, they need houses and they need them quick. It doesn’t matter the cost either, but they would have to be seen to be reasonable. That could mean turning all of Leitrim, where land is cheaper, into a housing estate.
Housing as a right, apart from the entitlement it would breed in infants, ignores the fact that it requires labour and capital from others. Invariably we say, “the rich” should pay for it. They don’t have a say in the matter. If they disagree they can be jailed or forced to emigrate. We say housing is a need, to be provided by government, but not everyone does have a need for state housing. What happens to them?
There are different forces at work behind more state involvement in housing vs free markets. Free markets compel producers to act rationally and provide value, because they are competing for profit. If they profit, they have provided something that others want.
Individuals are compelled to be productive in order to afford the best home possible for their specific needs and values. It means they are also providing value elsewhere and profiting from it. This is necessary for good self-esteem. The system works.
More state involvement in housing means that we hope people do the right thing and not to abuse other’s good will. You might be able to afford your own house but the state i.e. the rest of us will provide you with one anyway. We’d like you to have a stable family unit but if you don’t you will get housing. More babies equals more houses.
We see it all around us, when people do not have ownership over something, they will abuse it. Parks and nature spots around the country are vandalised regularly because they are a public good. They are part mine, so there is no problem if I dump my waste.
A very simple example of this is when I used to share ‘protein powder’ with my brother. If he buys it, my urge is to take as much as possible, to ‘get while the getting is good’. It might seem silly, but that is my lizard brain’s reaction. If I buy it, I will carefully measure out my serving to obtain maximum benefit. I will be disgruntled if he gets more than me. Obviously, we both hope the other will ‘do the right thing’, but the situation is ripe for abuse. Imagine this psychology but with apartments.
The solution to bad regulation should be less regulation. Politicians chase votes so they are incentivised to say whatever can appease the public short-term. Some do fight very strongly against this urge and are demonised, particularly given how fast ideas can spread. Housing regulators chase *long term employment* so they will continue to find new and varied problems needing regulation.
My solution is that we should leave people free to think and act for themselves.
