Rights of residents of public housing

[Bricker]

Many large cities have public housing projects of one variety or another.

In 1976, the Supreme Court handed down a decision styled Hills v. Gautreaux, which found that public housing schemes which racially discriminate by choosing to house poor minorities solely in concentration with other poor minorities was violative of the Constitution. So we can assume from this that the residents of public housing have the right to not be treated to racial segregation, intentionally or otherwise.

What other rights do they have?

By that I mean -- is public housing itself a right? We're in the middle of a healthcare debate right now in which the underlying current of one side might fairly be described as, "Healthcare is, at some level, a basic right." My question is twofold: first, is housing a basic right, the responsibility of the government to provide at some basic level? Second: if so, may the government impose conditions on the residents of public housing that it couldn't impose on people who buy their own shelter?

For example, let's imagine Winthrop Symthe, a convicted drug dealer, wants to hang around the front yard of a private residence. Assuming the homeowner doesn't object, the government has no real way to force Winthorp to move on. But if Winthorp is hanging around a public housing project, typically the police may ban him from the property, even if a given resident wants Winthorp to visit.

So the private homeowner (or apartment dweller) can't be forced by the government to give up his quality time with Winthorp -- but the residents of public housing can.

Is this fair? If it is, what other rights may the government permissibly infringe or inhibit for public housing residents?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Bricker

By that I mean -- is public housing itself a right?

Is there a specific definition of right for this debate? What I mean is when you say "right" do you mean inherent natural right, legal right, or morally "right"?

I could see people arguing different answers depending on what "right" means. I personally think the government has a moral duty to provide basic protection, including from the elements. A cot in a warm dry room full of cots would satisfy that, as long as the guests didn't pose a danger to each other.

If you mean a legal right then it is if the voters decided it is.

If you mean inherent natural right, that goes back to the government's duty to provide protection. I believe people have a basic right to protection and a fair shot at life. Protection from invading armies, protection of person and property, and protection from the elements, protection from economic misfortune taking away the basic necessities, like food, water, shelter, and medical care, and a fairshot at an education to better themselves and their place in the world.


Which doubles as my answer to your other paragaph.

For example, let's imagine Winthrop Symthe, a convicted drug dealer, wants to hang around the front yard of a private residence. Assuming the homeowner doesn't object, the government has no real way to force Winthorp to move on. But if Winthorp is hanging around a public housing project, typically the police may ban him from the property, even if a given resident wants Winthorp to visit.

So the private homeowner (or apartment dweller) can't be forced by the government to give up his quality time with Winthorp -- but the residents of public housing can.

Is this fair? If it is, what other rights may the government permissibly infringe or inhibit for public housing residents?

Say it was a private apartment complex and the land lord told Mr.Smyth he was forbidden from coming around, would it be any different?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Is there a specific definition of right for this debate? What I mean is when you say "right" do you mean inherent natural right, legal right, or morally "right"?

When I say "right," I mean something for which the denial to an individual provides a legal remedy. It's a right if, when you don't afford it to me, I can force you to by legal process.

Say it was a private apartment complex and the land lord told Mr.Smyth he was forbidden from coming around, would it be any different?

Sure it would be different. We recognize the right of an owner to bar people from his property. But if the owner is a public entity, like a city housing authority, may it exercise such rights even if its tenants are opposed?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Bricker

When I say "right," I mean something for which the denial to an individual provides a legal remedy. It's a right if, when you don't afford it to me, I can force you to by legal process.

Ahh I see. Well then the question is have the voters, or their representatives, provided for a legal remedy for lack of housing? In New York City last I knew the government was compelled legally to provide shelter as part of their war on homelessness. That was a few years ago though so maybe that's changed.

So in NYC it is a legal right, in Texas maybe not so much.

Also the poor can get section 8 housing assistance providing they meet some qualifications such as not having felonies or drug problems on their record IIRC. So some people do have legal rights to housing, and some don't.

Sure it would be different. We recognize the right of an owner to bar people from his property. But if the owner is a public entity, like a city housing authority, may it exercise such rights even if its tenants are opposed?

What's the difference between public housing and driving on a public street, or parking in a public parking lot during prohibited hours? The government regulates who can be on government property all the time. The only time they can't is when doing so interferes with a Constitutional Right, or is otherwise prohibited by a higher law.

Is there a Constitutional right to visiting public housing?

[sailor]

Originally Posted by Bricker

what other rights may the government permissibly infringe or inhibit for public housing residents?

You're the lawyer and you are asking us?

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by sailor

You're the lawyer and you are asking us?

This is my thought exactly, but applied more broadly than just to the bit sailor quoted.

Bricker, frankly I'm surprised that you would allow for the possibility of a positive right to housing (at least in the case of the US constitution).

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So the private homeowner (or apartment dweller) can't be forced by the government to give up his quality time with Winthorp -- but the residents of public housing can.

I would hope that, as an apartment dweller, my landlord would take action against criminals that I reported to them, regardless of whether the criminals were the guest of another dweller of my apartments.

Am I misunderstanding your point?

[Markxxx]

I don't get the concept of "public housing." I mean if we took this housing away, it would do what people used to do, move into together with roommates.

Usually public housing comes about because cities want it.

For instance if I am a developer in Chicago, and I want to build a building, the city will only issue a permit IF I agree to make so many units lower rent, or for sale lower.

I recall Chicago requiring this developer who had like 40 units, he had to sell the last two condos at 10% of the lowest selling price. Now he didn't have to do that, but he wouldn't have gotten the permits.

Other cities give tax breaks to those builders, but I don't see the point. I mean the point WAS to give poor people decent housing. But it never worked that way.

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by Markxxx

I don't get the concept of "public housing." I mean if we took this housing away, it would do what people used to do, move into together with roommates.

What people used to do, and what they still do in places that don't have public housing, is build shantytowns. Or simply end up living on the streets.

Do you really think there was no homelessness before public housing was invented?

[NoJustice]

I'm always wary of attempts to establish new rights. It may sound like it can only be a good thing but once it has been declared that the government has a responsibility to provide something, there is then an excuse to force you to accept things in situations where you might rather just do without. Making housing a right could amount to making it a crime to be homeless.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by NoJustice

I'm always wary of attempts to establish new rights. It may sound like it can only be a good thing but once it has been declared that the government has a responsibility to provide something, there is then an excuse to force you to accept things in situations where you might rather just do without. Making housing a right could amount to making it a crime to be homeless.

It's already a crime to be homeless in some places. Vagrancy laws.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

It's already a crime to be homeless in some places. Vagrancy laws.

The Supreme Court ruled many vagrancy laws un-Constitutional some years ago on the basis of vagueness (cite).

Originally Posted by Bricker

is housing a basic right, the responsibility of the government to provide at some basic level?

Since the Constitution does not explicitly define a right to housing under the protection of the Federal government, no. Therefore, the use of public housing is a privilege, like driving on the public roads.

may the government impose conditions on the residents of public housing that it couldn't impose on people who buy their own shelter?

Sure. Just like the government can take away a license to drive on the public roads in cases where this has been abused, the government can limit or deny the use of publicly subsidized housing.

ISTM, however, that your example of Winthrop the drug dealer should be dealt with by addressing limits on Winthrop's behavior, rather than the behavior of those in public housing. One condition of parole (and, I believe, probation) is not to associate with known felons. Thus Winthrop cannot visit his cousins the druggies no matter where they live. And harboring a felon, or allowing your space to be used for drug transactions, is already illegal, public housing or no.

I have sometimes thought about assigning some intermediate status for those dependent on public charity between 'full adult' and 'child'. But I haven't thought it thru particularly.

Regards,
Shodan

[PatriotGrrrl]

Originally Posted by Shodan

And harboring a felon, or allowing your space to be used for drug transactions, is already illegal, public housing or no.

Harboring a felon? I suspect you're thinking of harboring a fugitive. Or do you think that all felons are required to live alone, and not allowed to visit anyone?

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Since the Constitution does not explicitly define a right to housing under the protection of the Federal government, no. Therefore, the use of public housing is a privilege, like driving on the public roads.

You have plenty of legal rights and protections which are not granted by the Constitution, but are granted by other legal means. You have the right to sue, the right to marry (assuming you aren't queer), and the right to declare bankruptcy, none of which are addressed in the Constitution.

Similarly, government has lots of responsibilities that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution, like ensuring the safety of our food supply, making education available to all citizens, regulating minimum work conditions, and (possibly) providing a minimum standard of living. The last one is what's under debate here.

[Bryan Ekers]

Of some minor relevance, the latest Newsweek includes an argument to ban smoking in public housing.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Mosier

You have plenty of legal rights and protections which are not granted by the Constitution, but are granted by other legal means.

Okay - what law establishes housing as a basic right protected by the federal government? Please note that I said law, not court decision. Courts do not properly establish new rights that are under the protection of the federal government.

Originally Posted by PatriotGrrrl

Harboring a felon? I suspect you're thinking of harboring a fugitive. Or do you think that all felons are required to live alone, and not allowed to visit anyone?

As I mentioned, one of the conditions of parole (and, I believe probation) can be not to associate with known felons. Does that make it any clearer?

Thus

• Winthrop is a drug dealer.
• People on probation may not associate with drug dealers.
• Ergo, people on probation may not associate with Winthrop.

Substitute "in subsidized housing" for "probation" and see how it makes sense.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Okay - what law establishes housing as a basic right protected by the federal government?

Are you saying court decisions don't matter, here? Lots of rights and responsibilities are realized by court decisions, like the right to an abortion.

Also, this thread seems to be a lot more about whether minimal living standards OUGHT to be a government responsibility, more than whether it currently IS a government responsibility. In my opinion, this is nothing more than a poll measuring social liberalism.

[Sarahfeena]

I've been thinking of this issue the last couple of days, because this week Newsweek magazine had an editorial from a doctor who was trying to make the case that smoking shouldn't be allowed in public housing.

Haven't made up my mind about it yet. On the one hand, it's not private proprety, so it seems that the goverment might have a right to make rules about what happens there. On the other hand, it IS a private residence, so it also seems that the residents should have some right to autonomy.

Are there privately-owned apartment complexes that don't allow smoking, for instance? And does the government have the right to set the same kinds of restrictions any other property owner might?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Are you saying court decisions don't matter, here?

I am saying "Courts do not properly establish new rights that are under the protection of the federal government. ". Did you happen to notice that? It was in the part you snipped out.

Lots of rights and responsibilities are realized by court decisions, like the right to an abortion.

Not legitimately, they aren't.

Originally Posted by Sarahfeena

Are there privately-owned apartment complexes that don't allow smoking, for instance? And does the government have the right to set the same kinds of restrictions any other property owner might?

I think the argument is that people in subsidized housing are less able to leave, since they cannot afford anything better. Therefore, they are not consenting to restrictions on their autonomy in the same sense that those who rent in the complexes that ban smoking are.

I read the article that you and Bryan Ekers mention. The thrust seemed to be that smoking ought to be banned because those who live in subsidized housing are too stupid to know what is good for them. (The author mentioned some child s/he was treating whose mother smoked chronically, and which exacerbated the child's condition.)

It seemed to me that, unless the author was willing to advocate for a ban on smoking in general, at least in the presence of children, then s/he was assuming what I mentioned earlier - that there could be some state intermediate between full adult and dependent minor.

Like I say, I haven't thought it entirely thru.

Regards,
Shodan

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Bricker

When I say "right," I mean something for which the denial to an individual provides a legal remedy. It's a right if, when you don't afford it to me, I can force you to by legal process.

Well, let's see -- absolutely nothing compelled by act of Congress to be done by force of law may be considered a right in America 2009 unless one can show absolute unequivocal evidence of injury that is adequately compelling to five SCOTUS justices. The court has made that more than adequately clear.

Now, let us approach this from a different perspective: perhaps there is something that is universally agreed to be an optional act by the government, e.g., funding a public library. Is it legal to discriminate (based on suspect classifications) as to who may be permitted to use that library?

Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that there is no blanket affirmative duty to provide public housing, but that many communities, with or without HUD support, do so provide. Is the parallel valid: there is no requirement to provide public housing, just as there is no requirement to provide public library service -- but if it is provided, it must be provided according to equal protection standards?

[Polycarp]

Shodan: What if Winthrop is a registered pharmacist? "Consorting with known felons" does not equate to "consorting with people suspected of crime", though I believe a P.O. can identify individuals he believes to be a bad influence and require his clients not to associate with them. I'm not sure if you realized you were switching categories, from 'convicted felons' to 'drug dealers', in the middle of your analogy.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Now, let us approach this from a different perspective: perhaps there is something that is universally agreed to be an optional act by the government, e.g., funding a public library. Is it legal to discriminate (based on suspect classifications) as to who may be permitted to use that library?

Suppose we grant for the sake of argument that there is no blanket affirmative duty to provide public housing, but that many communities, with or without HUD support, do so provide. Is the parallel valid: there is no requirement to provide public housing, just as there is no requirement to provide public library service -- but if it is provided, it must be provided according to equal protection standards?

As long as they weren't discriminating against a protected class why wouldn't a library be able to to say who can and can't use it?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Shodan: What if Winthrop is a registered pharmacist? "Consorting with known felons" does not equate to "consorting with people suspected of crime", though I believe a P.O. can identify individuals he believes to be a bad influence and require his clients not to associate with them. I'm not sure if you realized you were switching categories, from 'convicted felons' to 'drug dealers', in the middle of your analogy.

Is there some rule on this thread, where nobody reads anything the first time it is posted?

For example, let's imagine Winthrop Symthe, a convicted drug dealer...

Sheesh.

Regards,
Shodan