Housing Rights

The floodplains of the river Yamuna in Delhi present a curious spectacle of agricultural rurality in a rapidly expanding megacity. Classified as Zone O for “Agricultural and Water Body” land use under the Master Plan of Delhi 2021, the floodplain—or khadar —has been witness to a series of contestations over the long decades of Delhi’s existence as the capital of India. The farmlands on both sides of the river have seen the establishment of thermal power plants and refugee colonies, the emergence of squatter settlements, waves of state-sponsored demolitions, and the quasi-legal construction of private and state structures. Most recently, they have attracted the punitive gaze of planning and judicial machineries as the larger project of cleansing, beautifying, and gentrifying the river and its banks become a symptom of worlding Delhi. Despite these varying, and often contrary, pulls and claims upon itself, the khadar remains predominantly agricultural, its resident farmers managing to exercise a tenuous right to stay put. This paper is interested in examining the political and cultural framework of this right being exercised and claimed by the khadar ’s residents. Given the intense transformative—or disruptive—pressure being brought to bear upon the khadar by various state and private agents, these farmers’ homes and livelihoods are in constant danger of being uprooted. Their identities as citizens of Delhi and as farmers in a megacity are, consequently, always almost-unsettled. Premised on archival and ethnographic work involving land records, court orders, oral life narratives, and key planning and policy documents, this paper will view the contested and constantly changing space of the khadar as emblematic of the deep unsettling wrought by models and mechanisms of urbanisation in contemporary Delhi.

At the heart of this proof of evidence is an evaluation of the regeneration benefits and disbenefits of the First Development Site (FDS) proposals for the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Land. In my evidence I will describe, explain and analyse how the FDS proposals are likely to impact on the Aylesbury Estate and contribute to the well-being of Estate residents in Sites 1b and 1c, in the interests of the residents and in the wider public interest. In order to do this I will provide an explanation and discussion of four complex concepts: ‘gentrification’, ‘community’, ‘regeneration' and ‘mixed communities’.  Gentrification, due to its conceptual weaknesses, struggles to encompass the complexities of the FDS proposals.

Mixed communities-led regeneration is supported by independent academic research for the benefits it can bring. Despite this, it is regarded by some objectors and academics as de facto gentrification. That position is not tenable and objectors have to explain how the disbenefits of the FDS scheme outweigh the obvious and substantial benefits in the short, medium and long term. The policy and practice of mixed communities are not perfect and do not offer utopian solutions in the case of the Estate. It is evident though, that this approach in the present socio-economic climate, has the capacity to deliver genuine improvements to troubled estates, the Aylesbury included.

I conclude that the FDS proposals will bring genuine aspirational regeneration to the Estate. The FDS proposals are likely to bring significant sustainable improvements in the conditions of Aylesbury residents suffering from aspects of deprivation, often multiple in nature. Others to benefit will be incoming residents who find a home in the FDS, especially an affordable one, and those who find employment during the long construction phase and after completion. Nevertheless, a long term view must be taken regarding: safeguarding, delivery and resourcing of this estate regeneration programme.

Finally, I conclude that under section 226, the Council must show that the FDS proposal for the CPO Land promotes or improves one or more of the: social, economic or environmental well-being of the area. This is right and proper because the FDS scheme impinges on tenants’ and leaseholders’ property rights. There are undoubtedly and unfortunately some disbenefits associated with the CPO proposals. However, drawing on the evidence presented in this proof, I am convinced that the regeneration benefits of the FDS scheme for the CPO Land are substantial, guaranteed to be delivered and far outweigh the disbenefits. I look forward to the CPO being confirmed so that the benefits can be achieved, to improve the lives, livelihoods and life chances of Aylesbury Estate residents.

Ensuring  access  to  adequate  housing,  especially  for  the  poor  and  disadvantaged  in society,  including  those  faced  with  evictions  and  displacement,  continues  to  be  a global  challenge.  The  situation  remains  critical  in  South  Africa,  with many  poor households  living  in  difficult  conditions,  facing  the  risk  of eviction and  unable  to
access  adequate  housing.  This  is  despite  the  myriad  of  progressive  housing  laws, jurisprudence, policies and programs that exist  in South Africa. Notwithstanding the challenges  that the  country
  faces  in  ensuring  the  effective  realization  of  the  right  to adequate  housing, as  illustrated  in  this  article, lessons  can  be  learnt  from  its
approaches and strategies to implement this right.

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp

This is an open source public document produced in connection with a UK urban regeneration CPO public inquiry. It should be read in association with other public inquiry documents including my proofs and those of Loretta Lees. In evidence, Professor Lees drew the Inspector’s attention to her current Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded research project. Attention was also drawn to the ESRC website which was said to contain a copy of the relevant research bid document. In fact, the website contains only a summary (appendix 1) of the full bid document that was submitted in evidence on 31 January 2018. The website identifies Professor Lees as the Principal Investigator. At the outset, I would note that the general subject of Professor Lees’ ESRC research outlined in the bid is welcome and necessary. The wish to evaluate the impacts of estate regeneration policy is commendable. That said, this response statement is intended to help the Inspector and the Secretary of State (SoS) understand the relevance of the research bid in the light of this CPO Public Inquiry and the evidence of Professor Lees. This statement provides a response to the research brief as it was called in evidence, for the ESRC project above. The brief is, in effect, the research bid that secured the funding for the project. This response is in two parts: 1) a response to the full research bid and 2) a response to the Abstract that is published on the ESRC website. This website Abstract contains the reference to Mr Boris Johnson’s “Kosovo-style social cleansing” that was referred to in oral evidence by Professor Lees.

The current response to slum dwellers with insecure tenure in Delhi is mostly compensatory, concentrating for rehabilitation and relocation. Neither does it explore security of tenure for JJCs, nor does it include approaches to reduce the vulnerability of slum dwellers. Not only is insecure tenure a roadblock to accessing infrastructure and basic civic amenities, it also presents itself as an obstacle in making the various aspects of one’s life because tenure is used as a proxy to decide legitimacy of citizens. IGSSS initiated this study to locate the opportunities of tenure security for the slums dwellers in Delhi with IIHS as their knowledge partner. The study looks at the legal and spatial make up of Delhi, along with an analysis of various forms of tenure and best practices across the globe. This analysis aims to pave way for designing a model policy ensuring tenure security of slums in Delhi.

This study has been a collaboration between Indian Institute for Human Settlements(IIHS) and Indo-Global Social Service Society (IGSSS), and is also part of research conducted under the Tacit Urban Research Network (TURN).

This is a book chapter in Langford, M., Sumner, A. and Yamin, A. (eds). The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: Past, Present and Future. Cambridge University Press, London, 2013. It explains the origin of MDG7d to significantly improve the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020, and uses the South African case to show how the simplistic messaging of this target, with its slogan 'Cities Without Slums' led to misinterpretations that favoured eradication and eviction.

Vital issues being excluded from the new Habitat Agenda at Habitat III (Quito, October 2016) are depleting the relevance of that global policy for the next twenty years. Civil society has the challenge of repairing those shortcomings with corrective content.

The government of Canada is engaged in a reactive legal exercise that seeks to address the crisis in affordable housing for Canadians, in particular with respect to the approximately 30,000 chronically homeless living on Canadian streets and in shelters. The National Housing Strategy (NHS) has committed the Federal government and certain provincial/territorial governments to halving that number over the next 10 years. 

Our thesis is that Housing First (HF) models, such as was adopted by the Finnish government in 2005, should be incorporated into the NHS because it has proven successful elsewhere

The proposed paper is more or less divided into two parts. The first deals with the situation in Canada vis-à-vis HF models and the proposed National Housing Strategy. The second touches on HF in the context of Finland’s national anti-homelessness strategy.

There will be a detailed discussion of the way that HF policies are developed and implemented in the Canadian context. HF is promoted across different levels of government in Canada, especially by municipal governments. However, this paper will attempt to demonstrate that such policies could be just as effective at the national/federal level, if such a model were based on successful examples of large-scale anti-homelessness programs elsewhere. 

Finally, the paper concludes with a section that examines the similarities and differences between Finland and Canada as it relates to the application of HF and housing rights. The objective will be to demonstrate that Finland is a good comparator with Canada for economic, social, political and legal reasons. This is not to deny significant cultural and constitutional differences between the two jurisdictions, in particular the absence of any recognized right to housing in Canada and the federal and jurisdictional division of powers, in particular regarding the regulation of property rights. And, finally, the strong influence of transnational and international legal norms on the Finnish architects of the national HF program.