Affirmative

I affirm Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.

The value for the round shall be

The value criterion shall be
Contention 1:
 Evidence
The right to housing is recognized in various international
human rights treaties, and thus such a right exists
UN 14
[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, intergovernmental organization to promote
international co-operation, United States is in the UN, 2014, The Right to Adequate Housing,
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf]

the Universal Declaration of Human

One of the first references to it is in article 25 (1) of
Rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, widely considered as the central instrument for the protection of the right to
adequate housing, refers to the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his fami ly,
including adequate food, clo thing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions (art. 11). As
mentioned above, the Committee has adopted general comments on the right to adequate housing and housing-
related issues which provide authoritative guidance on the Covenants provisions, in particular its general
Other international human rights treaties have addressed
comments Nos. 4, 7 and 16.
the right to adequate housing in different ways. Some are of general application
while others cover the human rights of specific groups, such as women, children, indigenous
peoples, migrant workers and members of their families, or persons with disabilities.

The lack of a right to housing for all leads to discrimination

and violence against women
UN 14- Women and adequate housing: Study by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a
component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, . (E/CN.4/2005/43, paras. 5961).

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, intergovernmental organization to promote international
co-operation, United States is in the UN, 2014, The Right to Adequate Housing,
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf]

Women face discrimination in many aspects of housing because they are women, or
because of other factors such as poverty, age, class, sexual orientation or ethnicity. In many parts of the world, and
womens enjoyment of the right to adequate housing often
especially in rural areas,
depends on their access to and control over land and property. Discrimination against women
in the housing sphere can be caused, for instance, by: discriminatory statutory laws; gender-neutral laws and
policies that fail to take into account womens special circumstances (such as their vulnerability to sexual and
gender-based violence); the predominance of customary laws and practices which discriminate against women; bias
in the judiciary and public administration; lack of access to remedies, information or decision-making processes;
and lack of awareness of rights. This discrimination is underpinned by structural and historical factors. Women and
inheritance In many parts of the world, women and girls face entrenched discrimination in inheritance, which can
Such discrimination can be
seriously affect their enjoyment of the right to adequate housing.
enshrined in statutory laws as well as in customary laws and practices that fail to recognize
womens equal rights to men in inheritance. As a result, women are either entitled
to a lesser share than male relatives, or are simply dispossessed from any
heritage of their deceased husbands or fathers. Violence is common within the context of
inheritance, as a womans property can be forcibly seized by relatives, an attempt
that often involves physical and psychological violence, and long-lasting
trauma. Relatives often abuse widows with impunity, as these matters are seen as a private family affair. If a
woman decides to fight for her inheritance, she may also face violence from her
in-laws or even from the community at large. In general, womens claims for
 inheritance can result in social exclusion, not only from the family but also from the
community.

Discrimination against women in security of tenure is severe;

the impact is violence
UN 14- Women and adequate housing: Study by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a
component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, . (E/CN.4/2005/43, paras. 5961).

Women face severe discrimination regarding security of tenure. Regardless of its

form, tenure is often understood, recorded or registered in the name of men, leaving
women dependent on their male relatives for tenure security. Moreover, while collective forms of
tenure can include women, the decision-making processes are often dominated by men. Without control
over housing, land or property, women enjoy little personal or economic autonomy and
are more vulnerable to abuse within the family, community and society at large. When
womens access to housing, land or property depends on a third persontheir
husbands, brothers, fathers or other male relativesthey become vulnerable to
homelessness, poverty and destitution if this relationship comes to an end. While forced
evictions have an impact on both men and women, women tend to be disproportionately affected. Women are
often exposed to violence and intense emotional stress before, during and
after an eviction, because of their close ties to the home and their role as caregivers for the entire
family.11 During evictions, verbal abuse, beatings and rape may take place. Following an
eviction, women are often more vulnerable to abuse, particularly if they have been forced to move to inadequate
lack of shelter and privacy in such settlements can
housing, often in informal settlements. The
lead to increased exposure to sexual and other forms of violence. When housing
conditions are inadequate, women are often disproportionately affected. For instance, women are usually
responsible for collecting water if water and sanitation services are inadequate, and often spend up to 4 hours a
day walking, queuing and carrying water. Domestic violence has been identified as a major cause of women and
children becoming homeless, especially when there is insufficient protection by law enforcement officials or by the
legal system itself. Conversely, fear of homelessness might compel women to remain in abusive relationships.

7 principles to the right to housing

NESRI 09
[National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, 2009, What is the Human Right to Housing,
https://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-housing]

Everyone has a fundamental human right to housing, which ensures access to a safe, secure, habitable, and affordable
home with freedom from forced eviction. It is the governments obligation to guarantee that everyone can exercise this right to live in
security, peace, and dignity. This right must be provided to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources.
There are seven principles that are fundamental to the right to housing and are of particular relevance to the right to housing in the
United States: Security of Tenure: Residents should possess a degree of security of tenure that guarantees
protection against forced evictions, harassment, and other threats, including predatory
redevelopment and displacement. Availability of Services, Materials, Facilities, and Infrastructure: Housing

must provide certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort, and
nutrition. For instance, residents must have access to safe drinking water, heating and lighting, washing facilities, means of
food storage, and sanitation. Affordability: Housing costs should be at such a level that the attainment

and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. For instance, one should not have to

choose between paying rent and buying food. Habitability/Decent and Safe Home: Housing must provide
residents adequate space that protects them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind, or other threats to health;
structural hazards; and disease. Accessibility: Housing must be accessible to all, and

disadvantaged and vulnerable groups must be accorded full access to housing resources. Location:
Housing should not be built on polluted sites, or in immediate proximity to pollution sources that
threaten the right to health of residents. The physical safety of residents must be guaranteed , as well.
Additionally, housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care
centers, and other social facilities. Cultural Adequacy: Housing and housing policies must guarantee the
expression of cultural identity and diversity, including the preservation of cultural landmarks and institutions.
Redevelopment or modernization programs must ensure that the cultural significance of housing and communities is not sacrificed.
The Right to Housing is protected in: Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 5 of the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women Article XI (11) of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man There are also United Nations committees
(treaty bodies) made up of experts that oversee the implementation of particular human rights treaties. These committees oversee
the treaties by, among other things, receiving government reports on the implementation of the treaties, making comments to the
government reports, and issuing general comments about the treaties or specific rights contained therein. The Committee on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has issued general comments on the right to housing. See General Comment 4 See General
Comment 7 Additionally, United Nations Special Rapporteurs are appointed to investigate human rights issues in countries around
the world. In 2004 and 2008, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing issued press releases about the threat to
the right to housing in the United States. In 2009, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing made the office's
first official visit to the United States. Special Rapporteurs Solidarity Statement for residents of Chicagos Cabrini Green, December
10, 2004 UN Experts call on U.S. Government to halt ongoing evictions in New Orleans, February 28, 2008 Media Advisory on UN
Special Rapporteur's Official Visit, October 20, 2009

Homelessness has a profound impact on children

UN 14
[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, intergovernmental organization to promote
international co-operation, United States is in the UN, 2014, The Right to Adequate Housing,
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf]

Childrens health, educational advancement and overall well-being are deeply

influenced by the quality of housing in which they live. Lack of adequate housing, forced
evictions or homelessness tend to have a profound impact on children due to
their specific needs, affecting their growth, development and enjoyment of a
whole range of human rights, including the right to education, health and personal security.

While the existence of millions of street children is often the most visible sign of childrens lack of shelter, other
Cramped,
situations also have specific ramifications for their enjoyment of the right to adequate housing.
crowded, noisy or run-down housing conditions seriously undermine childrens
development and health, as well as their capacity to learn or play. Studies have
highlighted that the lack of adequate housing increases mortality rates for children
under five, while the most significant form of chemical pollutant affecting childrens health in 20 low- and
middle-income countries is indoor pollution resulting notably from poor-quality stoves and inadequate ventilation.12
Access to basic services attached to the home, such as safe drinking water and
adequate sanitation, is fundamental to ensuring childrens health. Diarrhoeal
diseases claim the lives of nearly two million children every year; 80 to 90
per cent of these cases are the result of contaminated water and inadequate
sanitation. Particularly for girls, lack of safe drinking water within or close to the home can mean long
journeys to collect water at remote water points, often to the detriment of their education, along with the risk of
housing is also crucial
being subjected to harassment and other threats along the way. The location of
to ensuring childrens access to childcare, schools, health care and other
services. If settlements are far away from schools, or if transport is either non-existent or too expensive, it is
hard for children to get an education or health care. Homelessness has particular effects on
children, compromising their growth, development and security. Homeless
children can be vulnerable to a range of emotional problems, including anxiety,
sleeplessness, aggression and withdrawal. Their access to basic services, such as health care and
education, can also be seriously impaired if they have no fixed address.
Children living and working in the street are particularly vulnerable to threats,
harassment and violence by private individuals and the police. Forced evictions tend to affect the
entire family but have a particular impact on children. Following forced evictions, family stability is often
The impact of forced evictions on childrens development
jeopardized and livelihoods threatened.
is considered to be similar to that of armed conflict.13

Turn- Not providing housing actually costs more than providing

it
Cooper 15- cites
[Ryan Cooper, national correspondent at TheWeek.com, Solving Homelessness is Easy. So Why Dont We Just Do It?,
http://theweek.com/articles/575133/solving-homelessness-easy-why-dont-just]

The people you see out on the street, panhandling and sleeping in doorways, are almost always part of the small hard core of chronic
homeless people, about 10 percent of the homeless total. These are the people the New York Police Department is complaining about, and
they're typically older people with serious addictions or mental illnesses. Such people are very expensive for the state.
Homeless shelters cost a lot, and people on the street are constantly being picked up by the
police and getting sick from being out in the elements. Shelter beds, jail cells, court time, and repeated
emergency room visits (if not time in intensive care) add up to truly spectacular bills. Utah found that
it was spending $20,000 per year per chronically homeless person fully 60 percent of the total
spending on homeless overall, despite them being only a tenth of the total. In New York, the figure is more
like $40,500. Practically, this means that you could spend a lot of money on concentrated social services for the chronically homeless, and
still come out ahead financially if it keeps them off the street. So when Utah tried just handing such people their
own apartment in a program called Housing First (though participants do have to pay $50 or 30 percent of their
income, whichever is more), and combined that with regular attention from social workers, hey presto the state decreased chronic
homelessness by 91 percent.
(If they say that since Utah is already doing housing first so therefore we dont need the plan just say that one state
is not enough, and that we need national attention)

Turn- Utah
Carrier 15
[Scott Carrier, American author, Peabody award-winning radio producer, and educator, Room for Improvement, 2015,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah]

In 2005, approximately 2,000 of these chronically homeless people lived in the state of Utah, mainly in and around Salt Lake City.

Many different agencies and groupsgovernmental and nonprofit, charitable and religious
worked to get them back on their feet and off the streets. But the numbers and
costs just kept going up. The model for dealing with the chronically
homeless at that time, both here and in most places across the nation,
was to get them "ready" for housing by guiding them through
drug rehabilitation programs or mental-health counseling , or both.
If and when they stopped drinking or doing drugs or acting crazy, they were given heavily subsidized housing on the condition that

they stay clean and relatively sane. This model, sometimes called "linear residential treatment" or "continuum of care,"
seemed to be a good idea, but it didn't work very well because relatively
few chronically homeless people ever completed the work required to become "ready," and those who did often could not stay clean

or stop having mental episodes, so they lost their apartments and became homeless again. In 1992, a psychologist at
New York University named Sam Tsemberis decided to test a new model. His idea was
to just give the chronically homeless a place to live, on a
permanent basis, without making them pass any tests or
attend any programs or fill out any forms. "Okay," Tsemberis recalls thinking,
"they're schizophrenic, alcoholic, traumatized, brain damaged. What if we don't make them pass any tests or fill out any forms?

They aren't any good at that stuff. Inability to pass tests and fill
out forms was a large part of how they ended up homeless in the
first place. Why not just give them a place to live and offer them free
counseling and therapy, health care, and let them decide if
they want to participate? Why not treat chronically homeless people as human beings and members of
our community who have a basic right to housing and health care?" Tsemberis and his associates, a group called
Pathways to Housing, ran a large test in which they provided apartments to 242 chronically
homeless individuals, no questions asked. In their apartments they could drink, take drugs, and suffer mental breakdowns, as long

as they didn't hurt anyone or bother their neighbors. If they needed and wanted to go to rehab or detox, these services
were provided. If they needed and wanted medical care, it was also provided. But it was up to the client to decide
what services and care to participate in. The results were remarkable. After five years,
88 percent of the clients were still in their apartments, and the
cost of caring for them in their own homes was a little less
than what it would have cost to take care of them on the street.
A subsequent study of 4,679 New York City homeless with severe mental
illness found that each cost an average of $40,449 a year in
emergency room, shelter, and other expenses to the system, and that getting those individuals
in supportive housing saved an average of $16,282. Soon other cities such
as Seattle and Portland, Maine, as well as states like Rhode Island and Illinois, ran their own tests with similar results. Denver found

that emergency-service costs alone went down 73 percent for people put in Housing First, for a savings of $31,545 per person; detox

visits went down 82 percent, for an additional savings of $8,732. By 2003, Housing First had been embraced by the Bush

administration.