The Inequity of Rental Housing

Now if you were to agree to the arrangement the jeweler suggests then you have now entered into an almost identical arrangement that every tenant does when signing a lease. With a lease, you have signed up to be exploited because you must have a place to live. If you do not meet the requirements of a bank (most who earn under $40, 000 a year don't and how many of us are in that situation) you will be unable to obtain a mortgage and will be forced to rent in order to obtain housing.

Although a landlord must pay property taxes and maintenance expenses on his buildings, homes and land, he will still at the end of the day own something of worth, a tenant does not. One you can separate those items that are expenses from those that are investments, you come to realize that any rental of an investment is unjust, exploitive, and is an affront to any society, capitalist or otherwise, that considers itself free and equitable.

But what would be a solution. So many critics can eloquently and forcefully complain about injustices they see around them; very few offer concrete solutions to those problems. I hope I will never be one of these people.

Before I start, many will now after reading this, consider me an anti-capitalist. I am not. I believe that capitalism, although fettered to smooth out its rougher spots (such as child labour or futures speculation like I mentioned previously, or others things such as environmental destruction or for profit healthcare) is the best and most free way of structuring an economy. Full blown socialism does not work. It kills innovation and promotes a stagnant status-quo arrangement that encourages lethargy in its citizenry. Let's allow those who wish bring advancements to its citizens to do so, it is to our benefit as well as theirs, but not by the blatant exploitation of its vulnerable members.

So what is the solution? In order to best illustrate my opinion let's move to a different area of Canadian society. Canadians believe in a well educated citizenry. They realize that an uneducated person is doomed to failure; that an uneducated man is almost unemployable and will most likely be poor and will sometimes engage in crime to support his self. Canadians believe in education to such an extent that we pay for education fully until post-secondary school. We also subsidize our post-secondary institutions. If fact, Canadians are willing to go so far as to try to eliminate cost as a deterrent to those capable of furthering their education through entry into college or university. With bursaries and loans, many poor students can afford to attend a college or university. The same should be done for housing.

Does this mean that all private enterprise should be eliminated from housing and a public system be put in its place? No, that would be untenable. But the buying of land and housing in order to rent it out should be stopped. All housing property should be owned, not rented. What does this mean? Simply it means that all people, irrespective of income, will own the place they reside. All housing built will be sold to people who will live there, not to someone who will rent it out so that others will pay for the mortgage on the property.

But what happens to those who can't get a mortgage? Just as Canadians are willing to fund the education of its citizens because they realize that an educated population is a societal benefit, they should be willing to set up a system that will aid those in need to own the house/apartment they live in. They realize that every poor person on social assistance is funding the enrichment of landlords (if they are not in public housing). They realize that it would eliminate the need for public housing. They would understand that, eventually, everyone would be able to enjoy the property they live in without having to pay rent for their whole lives; that they would live rent and mortgage free paying only property taxes and upkeep expenses after approximately 20 years (the life of a typical mortgage).

Although I can see some problems with this system (as with student loans, mortgages may be defaulted on), it is a more just and equitable system. It does not stop a capitalist (or anyone else for that matter) from building, selling, and buying property. It just stops them from renting it. We decided long ago that a lord-peasant relationship was exploitive and unjust. Why is the modern equivalent (landlord-tenant) not? It can't just be the repugnance one feels from the idea that entitlement comes from birth, can it? It must also be from the belittled position the peasant finds himself in through no fault of his own. In order for a society to be considered just, the ownership of the most important property of all: land and housing, must be open to all its citizens, no matter of what economic class. It is not the size of the property but the ownership of it that creates justice. So whether its a 5 bedroom house or a simple bachelor apartment, let every Canadian have a stake in its land and the housing that sits on it. As a result, you will see a citizenry that becomes free from an antiquated idea that was wrong then, and considering the world at present (where ownership of private property is its cornerstone, and the basis of all capitalist systems), is even more so now.

Rental Housing - Page 1

Article by:
FS Staff

Related Links
SMR: Short Movie Reviews
Sound Advice: CD Reviews

Back To Exposure Online Magazine