Search for a command to run...
A few years ago, the TU Delft Centre for the Just City hosted Leilani Farha, a former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing and the current Global Director of The Shift, a Canadian-based platform dedicated to promoting housing as a fundamental human right.In her speech, Farha posed a crucial and unsettling question: 'If someone cannot afford housing, should they be allowed to live in the city?'The question was met with dismay.It was a deliberately provocative question.One's knee-jerk reaction is, of course, that everyone should be allowed to live in the city.It would be scandalous to forbid anyone from living in a city because of their economic status.If citizens have rights, that certainly includes the right to live where they please?But then, the difficult questions start: if people are allowed to live in the city, even without the means to afford it, who should provide them with decent housing?Should the state step in?Who should finance public housing schemes?And if they aren't allowed to live in the city, who should prevent them from doing so (especially in democratic societies)?Maybe disadvantaged citizens should be left free to fend for themselves and build their own housing?Shouldn't we trust people's ingenuity and self-reliance?Are the slums in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia somehow justified or even, according to some, desirable?If so, are we prepared to accept a bifurcated legal regime: one for those who can access housing through the market, and another for those who cannot?