Housing in Times of Uncertainty
Our lives have become reoriented as COVID-19 has shut down businesses and universities, pushing people out of work, out of school, and into their homes. There also appears to be an ideological reorientation occurring at the same time due to COVID-19. Class and labour struggles are beginning to shed light on the ideological underpinnings of society that stem from the welfare retrenchment of the 1980s and the neoliberal economic and societal restructuring that followed. Neoliberalism, as used in an academic context, is characterized by the opportunity for the individual to make free choices within the framework of the state, while also taking voluntary responsibility for their own welfare. I will be looking at Washington State’s response to the current housing crisis to see how these ideological reorientations are occurring through a local context.
Approaches to Housing: Human Rights and Markets Perspectives
Specifically looking towards the debates surrounding housing, there appears to be two main conflicting groups: one that prioritizes a human rights-based approach and another that focuses on a market-based approach. The human rights-based approach, one that focuses on ratifying housing as a right, has had recent wins through eviction moratoriums that ratify the immorality of evicting tenants (for non-health and safety related concerns such as failure to pay) during a time of crisis. Now that jobs are gone, incomes have vanished, and bills are coming due, this moratorium will provide an essential safety net against eviction for those adversely affected by COVID-19 and not covered adequately by the social safety net. But the secondary sequelae of COVID-19’s effect on access to housing are far from evident — what will happen to families that are unable to pay rent once the moratorium is over? Will we experience a series of mass evictions, which have been shown to start and perpetuate cycles of poverty and homelessness disproportionately affecting people of color and women? In his 2016 book “Evicted,” Mathew Desmond expands upon these themes, depicting vivid examples of the cycles of poverty and ill health that eviction, and the industry that supports it, perpetuate. There are also compliance concerns as well about landlords not respecting the right to housing during a pandemic and going through with illegal evictions. As of April 9th the Washington Attorney General’s office had received nearly 300 complaints of illegal evictions, clear violations of the moratorium put in place.
From a market-based approach, the eviction moratoriums could be identified as a ‘power grab’ by renters and tenants. As shown in an advocacy group for property-owners in Seattle, aptly named Seattle for Growth, the moratorium is heavily framed as an excuse to not pay rent. Last week I had a discussion with a property manager whose company controls over 1,800 units. He mentioned that tenants should not be thinking of this time as one to pocket money or buy a new car. It appears that landlords are viewing the moratorium, and subsequent rent strikes or inability to pay, as acts of selfish defiance. These discourses are exemplary of discourses surrounding poor individuals in America, discourses in which the poor are framed as undeserving for being unaccountable and having planned poorly. Yet what we are seeing here is not a difference between people who have emergency funds and those who do not, but instead a branching of responsibility between renters, homeowners, and property managers.
Responsibility for the Poor, Realization for the Rich
In society, specifically our neoliberal society, there is a tendency to place an emphasis on personal realization for the rich and personal responsibility for the poor. The poor should be held accountable for their actions, whereas the rich should be given the opportunities to maximize their entrepreneurial freedom within the frameworks of the state. This has become clear in the differential behaviors and treatment of businesses, property managers, and individual and family renters during this crisis. Amazon, the Seattle based tech giant, has given relief funds to small businesses surrounding its offices and will give free rent to tenants of its buildings through April. Large companies like the Cheesecake Factory have said they will “skip” their April rent. In New York City 75% of stores in their most expensive neighbourhood, Hudson Yards, did not pay their rent for April even though half were deemed to have adequate resources to pay their rent. In contrast, 66.4% of property managers in a recent Seattle based survey said they will be offering no concessions to individual and families that are renting. Individuals are given no such right as to be able to bargain with their landlords to “skip” rent, as they do not have the same bargaining power and are kept accountable to strive for personal responsibility. Yet many home and property owners have been given relief options from mortgage companies — some of which are offering up to a year of mortgage relief. So, if we can grant mortgage relief to property owners, why don’t individual and family renters have the same rights to rent relief?
One explanation why tenant’s rights are not as thorough or strong may be found in the Washington State Legislature. While the statehouse is controlled by Democrats, recently multiple legislations to protect renters have been shot down. This appears to be, in part, due to the fact there is a critical lack of representation from renters. While just over a third of Washingtonians are renters, only 3 out of 98 members of the House, and only 3 out of 49 in the Senate are renters. As the Washington State Legislature is only in session part-time, only those who can afford to work part of the year are able to make their voices heard, giving advantage to representatives from wealthier or more advantaged backgrounds. Although our congresswomen and men should be beholden to their constituents, their backgrounds do not reflect the demographic composition of the communities they serve. And as Rick Smith addressed in his article in the Stranger, one can only truly represent their own lived experiences. Thus, as more wealthy individuals end up in the state legislature, there becomes a loss of collective experience as renters, and renter’s rights become less of a priority to legislative officials.
COVID-19 Highlights That Essential Does Not Mean Properly Valued
Overall, this crisis seems to be showing us that the categories whose interests are being protected and those whose jobs are essential are not heavily overlapping. As Graeber talked about in his influential essay On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: A Work Rant, the most essential jobs to society are not those that are paid the most; in fact, they tend to be paid the least. This pandemic has turned into a clear real world example of Graeber’s thoughts and postulations. In his essay, he notes that the truly essential jobs — like warehouse work, package delivery, food service, and grocery store work — are low-paying, allotted low societal value, and simultaneously have the ability to cripple our society in case of strike or disaster. Graeber notes that society does not need anthropologists like him in order to function in the most basic sense — nor does it need corporate lawyers or landlords.
Yet our truly essential workers are not given the value they should be afforded. Most people who work these jobs rent as they cannot afford to buy housing in this market. It seems that the inequalities that have been so commonplace and quiescent are now rising to the surface and creating class-based anger. The anger is justified. Our housing rights are being challenged, and people’s right to safety is being put into the hands of the market. Although rent strikes would be a fascinating approach to empowering essential workers, they are being discouraged by advocacy groups at the moment, as they traditionally require focusing on a specific landlord and organizing their tenants against them with a specific demand. I hope in the coming weeks we will continue to see talk of rent relief and refusals to enact just cause or non-payment evictions.
