California legislators are considering a bill that would make the “right” to housing a part of the state’s constitution. Not surprisingly, supporters of the bill are unable to define how this alleged right would actually be implemented. Equally unsurprising, non-supporters of the bill are not challenging the fundamental premises underlying it.
The author of the bill, San Francisco Democrat Matt Haney, said that “the amendment could influence local planning decisions, such as by empowering lawsuits against zoning rules or policy decisions that restrict affordable housing development. It could also help the state enforce existing pro-housing laws.”
If local planning and zoning are an impediment to building more housing—and they are—then the solution is to remove those impediments, not proclaim a “right” to housing.
Rights pertain to freedom of action. They protect our freedom to act as we deem best, so long as we respect the freedom of others to act as they judge best. Freedom means an absence of government coercion.
Local planning and zoning laws dictate how individuals may use their property. Individuals are threatened with government force—the seizure of their property and jail—for violating those dictates. Through zoning and similar policies, government force is used to restrict the construction of housing. According to Haney, government force should be used to overcome the consequences of previous government force. The alternative of restoring freedom in land use by removing all government force apparently hasn’t even been considered.
One legislator expressed concerns about the bill. “The major, major heartburn I’m having right now is around enforcement and implementation of this.” The League of California Cities also expressed reservations, with a spokesman saying, “Cal Cities has concerns with ACA 10, as it does not include the significant investment needed from the state to jumpstart the construction of sorely needed affordable housing throughout California.”
Note that neither the legislator nor Cal Cities question whether housing truly is a right. They accept that premise, and are solely concerned with how to pay for it. And paying for it will ultimately mean using government force—taxation. Until they challenge the fundamental premises, they will continue to struggle to implement a fictitious right.