A slumlord is a derogatory term used to describe a landlord who knowingly maintains rental properties in poor or unsafe conditions, often while charging high rents. Slumlords typically neglect necessary repairs, ignore health and safety codes, and exploit tenants, often those in low-income or vulnerable situations who have limited housing options.
Characteristics of a Slumlord:
Poor Property Maintenance: Failing to address issues like leaky roofs, broken heating systems, mold, pest infestations, or structural problems.
Health and Safety Violations: Ignoring building codes, fire safety regulations, or sanitation standards.
Exploitation of Tenants: Charging high rents for substandard housing, often targeting tenants who lack the resources or knowledge to advocate for themselves.
Lack of Responsiveness: Ignoring tenant complaints or requests for repairs.
Illegal Practices: Engaging in unethical or illegal activities, such as wrongful evictions, rent gouging, or refusing to return security deposits.
The Shifting Sands of the Hourglass of World States, is there a Fourth World?
Legal Context in Canada and the US:
Both Canada and the US have laws and regulations to protect tenants from slumlords, but enforcement varies by region.
Canada: Provincial and territorial laws govern rental housing. Tenants can file complaints with local housing authorities or tenant boards if landlords fail to meet their obligations. For example, in Ontario, the Residential Tenancies Act outlines landlord responsibilities, and tenants can seek recourse through the Landlord and Tenant Board.
US: Housing regulations are enforced at the state and local levels. Tenants can report violations to local housing authorities or take legal action. Many cities have tenant rights organizations that assist renters in dealing with slumlords.
Tenant Rights:
Tenants in both countries have the right to:
Live in a safe and habitable environment.
Request necessary repairs.
Withhold rent or take legal action if the landlord fails to address serious issues.
Be free from retaliation for reporting violations.
Addressing Slumlord Practices:
Document Issues: Tenants should keep records of complaints, repairs, and communication with the landlord.
Report Violations: Contact local housing authorities or tenant advocacy groups.
Legal Action: In severe cases, tenants may sue for damages or force the landlord to make repairs.
Slumlords contribute to the broader issue of housing inequality and the lack of affordable, safe housing in many urban areas. Combating their practices requires stronger enforcement of housing laws and increased support for tenants.
Introduction In cities worldwide, the visibility of homelessness often prompts punitive measures, including arrests for offenses like sleeping in public or loitering. However, jailing homeless individuals is a counterproductive approach that exacerbates systemic issues rather than resolving them. This article explores why criminalizing homelessness is ineffective, inhumane, and costly, while advocating for evidence-based alternatives.
1. The Ethical Failure of Punishing Poverty Homelessness is rarely a choice. Systemic factors such as unaffordable housing, wage stagnation, mental illness, and lack of healthcare drive individuals into homelessness. Criminalizing these circumstances is inherently unjust, punishing people for conditions beyond their control. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Housing noted, laws targeting homelessness often violate human rights by discriminating against the poor. Jailing vulnerable populations ignores the root causes of homelessness, perpetuating cycles of marginalization.
2. Financial Costs: Jails vs. Solutions Incarceration is expensive. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in the U.S. exceeds 35,000,whereas providing permanent supportive housing—a proven solution—costs roughly 20,000–$25,000 per person annually. Cities like Houston and Salt Lake City have reduced chronic homelessness by up to 90% through Housing First initiatives, which prioritize housing without preconditions. Taxpayer dollars spent on jails could instead fund housing, mental health services, and job training, generating long-term societal savings.
3. Overburdening the Legal System Arresting homeless individuals for minor offenses clogs courts and jails, diverting resources from serious crimes. In Los Angeles, for example, homeless individuals are disproportionately cited for low-level violations, straining law enforcement and judicial systems. A 2019 study found that 11% of LA County Jail inmates were homeless, highlighting how incarceration becomes a revolving door for those without stable housing.
4. Public Health and Safety Concerns Jails are ill-equipped to address the complex needs of homeless populations, particularly those with mental health or substance use disorders. Incarceration often worsens these conditions, leading to higher relapse rates and vulnerability upon release. Conversely, access to healthcare, counseling, and harm reduction programs has proven more effective in improving outcomes. A 2020 study in Health Affairs found that supportive housing reduced emergency room visits by 40% among chronically homeless individuals.
5. The Cycle of Criminalization A criminal record creates barriers to employment, housing, and benefits, trapping individuals in homelessness. For example, a 2018 report by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty revealed that 70% of U.S. cities ban camping in public, pushing homeless populations into further isolation and legal jeopardy. This punitive approach undermines trust in institutions, discouraging people from seeking help.
6. Alternatives That Work Successful models emphasize dignity and support:
Housing First: Provides immediate housing with wraparound services, showing a 99% retention rate in Denver.
Mental Health Courts: Divert individuals to treatment instead of jail, reducing recidivism by 58% (Council of State Governments).
Outreach Programs: Cities like San Diego employ teams to connect homeless individuals with services, reducing street homelessness by 14% in two years.
Conclusion Jailing homeless people is a costly, short-sighted strategy that deepens societal inequities. Compassionate policies addressing root causes—affordable housing, healthcare access, and economic support—offer a sustainable path forward. As a society, we must choose investment over punishment, recognizing that homelessness is not a crime but a systemic failure demanding urgent, humane solutions.
References:
United Nations Human Rights Council, “Report on Adequate Housing” (2016)
National Alliance to End Homelessness, Cost Studies (2021)
Journal of the American Medical Association, “Health Outcomes and Housing First” (2020)
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, Housing First Evidence (2023)
One of the more daunting questions related to astrobiology—the search for life in the cosmos—concerns the nature of life itself. For over a century, biologists have known that life on Earth comes down to the basic building blocks of DNA, RNA, and amino acids. What’s more, studies of the fossil record have shown that life has been subject to many evolutionary pathways leading to diverse organisms. At the same time, there is ample evidence that convergence and constraints play a strong role in limiting the types of evolutionary domains life can achieve.
For astrobiologists, this naturally raises questions about extraterrestrial life, which is currently constrained by our limited frame of reference. For instance, can scientists predict what life may be like on other planets based on what is known about life here on Earth? An international team led by researchers from the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) addressed these and other questions in a recent paper. After considering case studies across various fields, they conclude that certain fundamental limits prevent some life forms from existing.
Artist’s impression of Earth during the Archean Eon. Credit: Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
The team considered what an interstellar probe might find if it landed on an exoplanet and began looking for signs of life. How might such a mission recognize life that evolved in a biosphere different from what exists here on Earth? Assuming physical and chemical pre-conditions are required for life to emerge, the odds would likely be much greater. However, the issue becomes far more complex when one looks beyond evolutionary biology and astrobiology to consider synthetic biology and bioengineering.
According to Solé and his team, all of these considerations (taken together) come down to one question: can scientists predict what possible living forms of organization exist beyond what we know from Earth’s biosphere? Between not knowing what to look for and the challenge of synthetic biology, said Solé, this presents a major challenge for astrobiologists:
“The big issue is the detection of biosignatures. Detecting exoplanet atmospheres with the proper resolution is becoming a reality and will improve over the following decades. But how do we define a solid criterion to say that a measured chemical composition is connected to life?
“[Synthetic biology] will be a parallel thread in this adventure. Synthetic life can provide profound clues on what to expect and how likely it is under given conditions. To us, synthetic biology is a powerful way to interrogate nature about the possible.”
The sequence where amino acids and peptides come together to form organic cells. Credit: peptidesciences.com
To investigate these fundamental questions, the team considered case studies from thermodynamics, computation, genetics, cellular development, brain science, ecology, and evolution. They also consider previous research attempting to model evolution based on convergent evolution (different species independently evolve similar traits or behaviors), natural selection, and the limits imposed by a biosphere. From this, said Solé, they identified certain requirements that all lifeforms exhibit:
“We have looked at the most fundamental level: the logic of life across sales, given several informational, physical, and chemical boundaries that seem to be inescapable. Cells as fundamental units, for example, seem to be an expected attractor in terms of structure: vesicles and micelles are automatically formed and allow for the emergence of discrete units.”
The authors also point to historical examples where people predicted some complex features of life that biologists later confirmed. A major example is Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 book What is Life? in which he predicted that genetic material is an aperiodic crystal—a non-repeating structure that still has a precise arrangement—that encodes information that guides the development of an organism. This proposal inspired James Watson and Francis Crick to conduct research that would lead them to discover the structure of DNA in 1953.
However, said Solé, there is also the work of John von Neumann that was years ahead of the molecular biology revolution. He and his team refer to von Neumann’s “universal constructor” concept, a model for a self-replicating machine based on the logic of cellular life and reproduction. “Life could, in principle, adopt very diverse configurations, but we claim that all life forms will share some inevitable features, such as linear information polymers or the presence of parasites,” Solé summarized.
The first implementation of von Neumann’s self-reproducing universal constructor. Three generations of machines are shown: the second has nearly finished constructing the third. Credit: Wikimedia/Ferkel
In the meantime, he added, much needs to be done before astrobiology can confidently predict what forms life could take in our Universe:
“We propose a set of case studies that cover a broad range of life complexity properties. This provides a well-defined road map to developing the fundamentals. In some cases, such as the inevitability of parasites, the observation is enormously strong, and we have some intuitions about why this happens, but not yet a theoretical argument that is universal. Developing and proving these ideas will require novel connections among diverse fields, from computation and synthetic biology to ecology and evolution.”
Duty to Assist is a homelessness prevention approach that works upstream and uses a human-rights lens. Originating in Wales, it is also known as the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, which created a legal obligation for local authorities, such as governments, to make reasonable efforts to move individuals out of homelessness or stabilize their housing.
The fourth session of the Prevention Matters! series was hosted by Stephen Gaetz from the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness and dug into the details of how Duty to Assist works. Gaetz interviewed Peter Mackie of the Centre for Homelessness Impact at the University of Cardiff who was a key player in the implementation and creation of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. They discussed the implementation of Duty to Assist in the United Kingdom, as well as challenges faced in the process and what Duty to Assist might look like in the Canadian context.
How Does Duty to Assist Work?
Individuals affected by homelessness are eligible for assistance at three stages:
Prevention stage: When an individual is at risk of homelessness, authorities can intervene by trying to address the factors contributing to the risk, such as paying rental arrears or providing a rent subsidy.
Relief stage: After a person’s housing is lost, the authorities can intervene by trying to find them new accommodations.
In the event that both options fail, individuals in priority groups who are covered by previous legislation will have housing secured for them.
Duty to Assist works upstream, meaning that it assists individuals earlier than previous legislation allowed. Those who are at risk of homelessness or have just become homeless can seek out help from local authorities earlier. This allows issues to be addressed in a more timely and cost-effective manner.
According to Mackie, Duty to Assist has proven to be much more effective in the prevention stage. The intervention can be something as simple as paying off arrears or providing first and last month’s rent, which is a much simpler approach than trying to find brand-new accommodation.
“If you are already homeless, to take steps to resolve your homelessness, we’re way less successful there because you don’t have the home to try and keep somebody in.” – Peter Mackie
Challenges with Duty to Assist
While the implementation of Duty to Assist is a win for prevention in Wales, the legislation is still riddled with difficulties that go beyond the homelessness sector. As Promise Busulwa, the producer of Prevention Matters! always says in her opening remarks: “The housing crisis cannot be solved by the homelessness sector alone.” Mackie has written articles outlining the need for “…effective universal prevention to be the foundation of any strategy to end homelessness.” Many of the ongoing issues with the Duty to Assist model are the lack of consolidated, systematic care and collaboration between public bodies and other organizations to address the root causes of homelessness.
“But what we don’t have in the legislation is a requirement that, for instance, a landlord would notify the local authority.” – Peter Mackie
Another challenge noted by Mackie is that people can be hesitant to change. Individuals who are impacted by impending or current homelessness, and who therefore qualify for Duty to Assist, need to be aware of the program itself and request assistance. This has proven to be difficult, especially given that the legislation and the supports offered looked very different prior to the implementation of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Prior to the implementation of Duty to Assist, the legislation only provided assistance for families with children and other priority groups.
Currently, there is a gap as public institutions, like hospitals and prisons, do not call for assistance from local authorities when releasing an individual into homelessness. Mackie also noted push back about the universal nature of Duty to Assist. Many parties involved in the legislative process pushed to maintain the focus on priority groups, clashing against the universal prevention model that applies to everyone experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Mackie spoke to the difficulties involved in imposing a “duty” on public bodies that had the power to intervene in the creation of an individual’s homelessness situation. Simply put, these parties could not be mandated to provide assistance because “ somebody is going to fail.” Instead, the legislation mandates a ‘best efforts duty.’ A duty to assist means providing assistance to those who willingly consent to receiving help and are, in return, expected to comply with attempts to provide them with assistance.
“In government, there’s often a reluctance to actually use the word ‘must.’” – Peter Mackie
To combat these challenges, Mackie calls for better data sharing and a more person-centred focus when providing services. As the legislation is currently being revised for what has been coined as “Duty to Assist, Mark II,” Wales aims to have these issues addressed and changes implemented, which involves including a more diverse range of voices. While Mackie expresses frustration with the lack of support both financially and from public systems for Duty to Assist, he does acknowledge that it has been very helpful as Wales traverses a housing crisis.
What Does this Mean for Canada?
While Duty to Assist cannot be precisely replicated in Canada because of the lack of infrastructure, Stephen Gaetz noted it is regarded as a fundable homelessness prevention method by the Government of Canada. Mackie also mentioned that the overall principles of Duty to Assist can be implemented without legislation—although they may be less effective without the legislative aspect—on a community or municipal level. While it would be ideal for there to be legislation to hold public bodies to account, Wales has not experienced any high court cases surrounding the Duty to Assist, leading Mackie to believe that the implementation of the Duty to Assist principles without legislation should be possible.
Mackie recommended implementing Duty to Assist in a community to prove that it works before aiming to scale it upwards, and Gaetz replied this had been in progress before the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s hoping Duty to Assist gets the chance to prove its value in Canada.
Interested in more diverse perspectives on homelessness prevention? Check out the rest of the Prevention Matters! Series. Want to learn more about Duty to Assist? There is a free, self-paced training on the Homelessness Learning Hub.
Originally published on The World-Wide Web’s Homeless Hub On Monday October 21st, 2024
The analysis and interpretations contained in these blog posts are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.
For a period of more than 150 years, First Nations, Inuit and Métis Nation children were taken from their families and communities to attend schools which were often located far from their homes. More than 150,000 children attended Indian Residential Schools. Many never returned.
The first church-run Indian Residential School was opened in 1831. By the 1880s, the federal government had adopted an official policy of funding residential schools across Canada. The explicit intent was to separate these children from their families and cultures. In 1920, the Indian Act made attendance at Indian Residential Schools compulsory for Treaty-status children between the ages of 7 and 15.
Assumption Hay Lakes school buildingAssumption Hay lakes school building
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) concluded that residential schools were “a systematic, government- sponsored attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and languages and to assimilate Aboriginal peoples so that they no longer existed as distinct peoples.” The TRC characterized this intent as “cultural genocide.”
The schools were often underfunded and overcrowded. The quality of education was substandard. Children were harshly punished for speaking their own languages. Staff were not held accountable for how they treated the children.
St. Anthony’s Sacred Heart buildingCrowfoot St. Joseph buildingCoqualeetza Chilliwack School building
We know that thousands of students suffered physical and sexual abuse at residential schools. All suffered from loneliness and a longing to be home with their families.
The schools hurt the children. The schools also hurt their families and their communities. Children were deprived of healthy examples of love and respect. The distinct cultures, traditions, languages, and knowledge systems of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples were eroded by forced assimilation.
The damages inflicted by Residential Schools continue to this day.
For a great many Survivors, talking about their experiences in residential schools means reliving the traumas they experienced. For years, many told no one about what they had endured.
In 1996, the landmark Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples drew attention to the lasting harm that was done by the residential schools. A growing number of Survivors and their descendants came forward to tell their stories and demand action.
Through their courage and persistence, an eventual legal settlement was reached between Survivors, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit representatives and the defendants, the federal government and the churches responsible for the operation of the school. The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement included:
A commitment to a public apology. On June 11, 2008 then Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal Statement of Apology on behalf of Canada. The Apology stated that, “There is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential schools system to ever again prevail.”
Financial compensation to Residential School Survivors including a lump sum Common Experience Payment, the Independent Assessment Process for the most serious forms of individual abuse, and a Commemoration Fund.
The creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to inform all Canadians about what happened in the Residential Schools by witnessing and documenting the truth of Survivors, families, communities and anyone personally affected by the Schools. The TRC issued an extensive report on the history of residential schools as well as Calls to Action and Principles of Reconciliation.
It is important to acknowledge that the Settlement Agreement was not comprehensive. The Métis Nation Survivors were not part of the Settlement Agreement. A separate settlement was reached with Survivors from Newfoundland and Labrador in 2016. A settlement agreement with Survivors of federal Indian Day Schools was not reached until 2019.
The NCTR is carrying on key aspects of the TRC’s work, including safeguarding and adding to the archive of Survivor statements and other records and building a registry of the thousands of children known to have died in residential schools.
In September 2020, Parks Canada announced that Residential Schools had been designated an event of national historical significance. Such designations mark aspects of Canadian history, whether positive or negative, that have had a lasting impact on shaping Canadian society.
The Canadian Parliament passed legislation, Bill C-5, to create a national day of commemoration to honour residential school Survivors and promote understanding of residential school history. The TRC called for such commemoration in its Calls to Action (Call to Action 80). The first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation took place September 30, 2021.
