Why I Don't Support Habitat for Humanity--and Why I do Support Housing Co-operatives (Warning: long posting)

To look at the problem I have with Habitat for Humanity, we have to backtrack and define some terms.

First of all, there is the important difference between charity and justice. Most of you will already know this one, so bear with me: a charity temporarily alleviates a crisis situation, such as inadequate food or shelter in a given population from an emergency arising. Examples are legion, but think of "Katrina Relief" projects. Charity is vitally important, it has a place in our world, but it has limitations. Charity, however well-intentioned, does nothing to change the situation that led to the crisis. Food banks, for example, help alleviate hunger, but do not change the societal problem that created the hunger.

Justice, on the other hand, is the conscious attempt to change the conditions that led to the crisis in the first place. In the case of hunger, perhaps the problem (invariably a complex one) lay in unemployment, and/or governmental policies, in societal attitudes like homophobia, racism, sexism, ageism, etc; the economic structure of a society itself. And more. I should note that justice work is infinitely more complex than charity work. I also feel that there is room for both, as long as the key difference between the two is noted.

Habitat for Humanity is charity, not justice. Although arguably, it could be called a hybrid because it insists on the receiver of the charity participating with "sweat equity" in the benefit, Habitat for Humanity does not essentially change the situation that created the problem that I agree is central to their existence: the lack of affordable, decent housing for low-income people worldwide.

Here is why: a key part of the problem is housing as a part of economic speculation, or housing as a for-profit enterprise, like any other business. This keeps housing prices higher than they otherwise might be, to maximize owners' profits. The concept of "home as equity" also leads to a NIMBY-like resistance to needed initiatives in urban centres, like women's shelters, rehabilitation centres, and even affordable housing itself (we don't want to "lower property values."). These high prices make housing unaffordable--the system keeps it that way. Unfortunately, H4H supports and helps maintain the system, without its advocates realizing it. More on that shortly.

Because housing is so much a part of marketplace values, affordable housing is unlikely to emerge from the marketplace--it goes against the profit motive that drives the marketplace. Our history has shown that only when people organize into cooperatives and find a way to create their own not-for-profit housing, that such will happen. In a limited sense, Habitat for Humanity is a cooperative effort, with a group of people banding together, working together to create affordable housing. But, there is a "but"...

Now, as to how H4H supports the for-profit system of housing: once an H4H house is created, the owner is not prevented from later selling the home for a profit and thus helping perpetuate the system that creates and maintains unaffordable housing in the first place. We're back to square one: housing as equity. Ownership is itself the problem.

To this criticism I would add that "one home at a time" is far too individual an approach. Single-family dwelling, despite its being a "dream" for so many, is a very resource-consumptive, inefficient style of housing that I feel we can ill afford to maintain. Habitat is stuck, from what I can see, on single-family or at most, duplex style architecture.

An alternative? Housing cooperatives. They remove the problem of for-profit housing by being owner-free, so to speak. That is to say, they are not-for-profit from the get-go. They are held in common by the members, with the mortgage held by the federal (or provincial) government, on government land (ours is on city land, through a lease). Members do not own and therefore cannot buy or sell their units (NB: Co-housing, something more common south of the border, is a "cooperative" in which individuals do own their units; in my view, it's a non-starter, but this is long enough already). So co-ops do not support the for-profit system.

The majority of co-ops are one or a hybrid of any of the following: groups of duplexes, multi-unit "apartment" style buildings, town houses in clusters, and more. In other words, the emphasis is on helping a greater number of people at one time. This style of housing is much more resource-friendly and efficient, and has another bonus that H4H generally lacks: conscious creation and maintenance of community.

All co-ops work by membership (as opposed to ownership or simple rental/lease fee arrangement). This means that potential members are screened to ensure that they understand what a co-op is, and whether they will fit in--if they feel it's not for them, fine. All co-ops consciously create and maintain community. Co-ops all work by volunteerism, which increases members' participation (and builds community, not surprisingly) and keeps costs down (affordable, remember). In other words, from the beginning, someone entering a co-op is becoming a member of an existing community, a supportive network of people, a bona fide neighbourhood. The only exception to this is someone entering as a founding member, a new co-op--in which case, they are on the ground floor of creating that community.

So in a nutshell, Habitat for Humanity is an individualistic, ultimately market-oriented approach to affordable housing, and does not pay enough attention to housing as community. It is charity: it does nothing to change the conditions that led to unaffordable housing. Co-operatives, on the other hand, are not market-oriented, are affordable for larger numbers of people at once, and are community-oriented. They challenge the for-profit housing system. Neither is a perfect approach, but of the two, I find cooperatives a much better approach. They represent justice, in my view.

By the way, in the bigger picture, 40% of the Canadian population has a membership in at least one co-operative: credit unions/caisse populaires, food co-ops, farm co-ops, funeral co-ops, even art co-ops and publishing co-ops, and of course, housing co-ops. It's a great system. In the worldwide picture, nearly all Fair Trade initiatives involve workers and/or growers' co-ops. You might have a look at the link just above, and go to the New Internationalist's Back Issues, # 368, on the Co-operative movement (June 2004). And there's plenty more co-op activity besides that. Remember It's a Wonderful Life? Financial co-op!

Later on, I might speak to the other aspects of co-ops. For now, I'm sure your eyes need a rest! {grin}