What Can I Do About A Slumlord?

Featured

Dealing with a slumlord can be incredibly frustrating and stressful, but there are steps you can take to protect your rights and improve your living situation. Here’s a guide to help you navigate the situation:


1. Know Your Rights

  • Familiarize yourself with local tenant laws and housing codes. These vary by location but generally guarantee your right to a safe and habitable living environment.
  • Common landlord responsibilities include providing:
    • Working utilities (heat, water, electricity).
    • Proper sanitation and waste disposal.
    • Structural integrity (no leaks, mold, or pest infestations).
    • Safe and secure locks on doors and windows.
  • If your landlord is failing to meet these standards, they may be violating the law.

2. Document Everything

  • Keep a detailed record of all issues, including:
    • Photos and videos of unsafe or unsanitary conditions.
    • Written notes about when problems started and how they’ve been ignored.
    • Copies of all communication with your landlord (emails, texts, letters, etc.).
  • This documentation will be critical if you need to take legal action or report the landlord.

3. Communicate with Your Landlord

  • Notify your landlord in writing about the issues and request repairs. Be specific, polite, and keep a copy of the letter or email.
  • If they don’t respond or refuse to make repairs, send a follow-up notice and mention your legal rights.

4. Report Code Violations

  • Contact your local housing authority, health department, or building code enforcement agency to report unsafe or unsanitary conditions.
  • An inspector may visit your property and issue a violation notice to the landlord, forcing them to make repairs.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA – Some abandoned townhouses standing in Uptown district

5. Withhold Rent or Repair and Deduct

  • In some areas, tenants are allowed to withhold rent or pay for repairs themselves and deduct the cost from rent. However, this can be risky, so:
    • Check your local laws to ensure this is allowed.
    • Notify your landlord in writing before taking action.
    • Keep receipts and documentation for all repairs.

6. Join or Organize with Other Tenants

  • If other tenants are experiencing similar issues, consider organizing as a group. Landlords are more likely to respond to collective action.
  • You can also reach out to local tenant unions or advocacy groups for support.

7. Seek Legal Help

  • If your landlord continues to neglect their responsibilities, consult a tenant attorney or legal aid organization.
  • You may be able to:
    • Sue for damages or compensation.
    • Break your lease without penalty.
    • Force the landlord to make repairs through a court order.

8. Consider Moving

  • If the situation doesn’t improve and your health or safety is at risk, it may be best to find a new place to live.
  • Before moving, ensure you’re not violating your lease and that you’ve followed proper legal procedures to protect yourself from retaliation or eviction.

9. Report to Local Media

  • If the situation is severe and widespread, contacting local news outlets can bring attention to the issue and pressure the landlord to act.

10. Stay Safe

  • If you feel threatened or unsafe due to your landlord’s actions, contact local law enforcement or a tenant advocacy group immediately.

Resources to Help You:

  • Local Housing Authority: For reporting code violations or unsafe conditions.
  • Legal Aid Organizations: For free or low-cost legal advice.
  • Tenant Unions: For advocacy and support in organizing with other tenants.
  • State or Local Tenant Rights Websites: For information on your specific rights.

By taking these steps, you can hold your landlord accountable and work toward a safer, healthier living environment.

Arguments for Slumlords as a Source of Affordable Housing

Featured

  1. Market Necessity: In areas with severe housing shortages, slumlords may provide the only available option for low-income individuals, preventing homelessness.
  2. Economic Realities: Some landlords claim they cannot improve properties without raising rents, which could displace tenants. Low-income tenants might prioritize cost over quality due to limited options.

Criticisms of Slumlords as a Blight:

  1. Exploitative Practices: Charging high rents for substandard housing capitalizes on tenants’ desperation, often violating health/safety codes.
  2. Health and Safety Risks: Poor conditions (e.g., mold, pests, structural issues) harm physical and mental health, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
  3. Moral Concerns: Profiting from inadequate housing perpetuates inequality and dehumanizes tenants, prioritizing profit over human dignity.
  4. Community Impact: Neglected properties contribute to neighborhood blight, reducing investment and perpetuating cycles of poverty.

Systemic Context:

  • Root Causes: Slumlords thrive in systems with inadequate affordable housing, weak regulation, and income inequality. They are a symptom of broader failures in housing policy.
  • Regulatory Gaps: Weak enforcement of housing standards allows slumlords to operate, while insufficient subsidies or public housing leave tenants with few alternatives.

Conclusion:

Slumlords are primarily a blight, exacerbating poverty and inequality through exploitation and neglect. While they may fill a temporary gap in housing supply, their practices harm individuals and communities. Addressing the issue requires systemic solutions:

  • Policy Interventions: Strengthen tenant protections, enforce housing codes, and expand affordable housing initiatives.
  • Ethical Alternatives: Promote public housing, rent control, and community land trusts to provide dignified, sustainable housing.

Ultimately, the existence of slumlords underscores the need for structural reforms rather than tolerating exploitative stopgaps.

slumlords provide affordable housing. In many cities, there’s a shortage of affordable housing, so even if the housing is substandard, it might be the only option for low-income individuals or families. Without these slumlords, maybe there would be even fewer options, leading to homelessness. But then, the counterargument is that the conditions in these properties are terrible, possibly violating health and safety codes. So even if it’s affordable, is it acceptable for people to live in such conditions?

You’ve highlighted a critical tension in the debate about slumlords and affordable housing: the trade-off between availability and quality. Let’s break this down further:

The Argument That Slumlords Provide Affordable Housing:

  1. Housing Shortages: In many cities, affordable housing is scarce due to rising costs, gentrification, and insufficient public housing. Slumlords fill a gap by offering low-cost options, even if the conditions are poor.
  2. Preventing Homelessness: For some low-income individuals or families, substandard housing may be the only alternative to living on the streets or in shelters, which can be even more precarious.
  3. Market Realities: Slumlords often operate in neighborhoods where property values are low, and the cost of maintaining or improving housing exceeds what tenants can pay. Without them, these properties might remain vacant or be redeveloped into unaffordable housing.

The Counterargument: Unacceptable Living Conditions:

  1. Health and Safety Risks: Substandard housing often violates health and safety codes, exposing tenants to hazards like mold, lead paint, pests, faulty wiring, and structural instability. These conditions can lead to serious health problems, especially for vulnerable populations like children and the elderly.
  2. Exploitation: Slumlords often charge rents that are disproportionately high relative to the quality of the housing, exploiting tenants who have no other options.
  3. Moral and Ethical Concerns: Allowing people to live in such conditions raises ethical questions about dignity and human rights. Affordable housing should not come at the cost of basic safety and well-being.
  4. Long-Term Costs: Poor housing conditions can perpetuate cycles of poverty by affecting tenants’ health, education, and employment opportunities, ultimately costing society more in healthcare, social services, and lost productivity.

The Broader Systemic Issue:

The existence of slumlords is a symptom of deeper systemic failures:

  • Lack of Affordable Housing: Governments and private developers have not built enough affordable housing to meet demand, leaving low-income individuals with few options.
  • Weak Regulation and Enforcement: In many places, housing codes are not strictly enforced, allowing slumlords to operate with impunity.
  • Economic Inequality: Rising income inequality and stagnant wages make it difficult for many people to afford decent housing, forcing them into substandard options.

Is It Acceptable?

While slumlords may provide a temporary solution to housing shortages, the conditions they offer are fundamentally unacceptable. Affordable housing should not come at the cost of health, safety, or dignity. The solution lies in addressing the root causes of the problem:

  • Policy Solutions: Governments should invest in affordable housing, enforce stricter housing codes, and provide subsidies or incentives for landlords to improve properties.
  • Community Initiatives: Nonprofits and community land trusts can develop and maintain affordable, high-quality housing for low-income residents.
  • Tenant Protections: Stronger tenant rights and rent control measures can prevent exploitation and ensure that housing remains affordable and habitable.

In conclusion, while slumlords may fill a gap in the short term, their existence is a symptom of systemic failures that need to be addressed. Affordable housing should not mean substandard housing, and society must strive to provide safe, dignified living conditions for all.

Residential School History / Day of Truth and Reconciliation

Featured

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 building
Assumption Hay Lakes school building
Assumption Hay lakes school building
Assumption 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 building
St. Anthony’s Sacred Heart building
Crowfoot St. Joseph building
Crowfoot St. Joseph building

Coqualeetza Chilliwack School building
Coqualeetza 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.

Article Originally in Print online:

https://nctr.ca/education/teaching-resources/residential-school-history/

Reference care of Homeless Hub which also employs a explanatory video:

The History Of Evictions

Featured

Evictions in Canada have a long history, beginning with the forced displacement of Indigenous Peoples due to colonization and European settlement. In this three-part blog series focusing on shelter diversion and eviction prevention (SD-EP), we will explore past policies and governing documents that continue to contribute to homelessness and impact efforts in Canada today.

Shelter Diversion (SD) is a strategy that diverts individuals and families from entering the emergency shelter system by providing them alternate supports to prevent their homelessness. Supports can include providing immediate alternative housing and connections to various services, such as financial assistance. Similarly, Eviction Prevention (EP) initiatives support individuals and families so that they do not face eviction and avoid becoming homeless.

To develop effective SD-EP programs, it helps to begin with a historical perspective to understand the nature of the problem of eviction so that we can impact the underlying causes and avoid reproducing harms that evictions have caused over centuries. In this blog, we will focus on the Doctrine of Discovery and the National Housing Act as two examples that show the continuity of colonial policies and governing documents favouring the displacement of Indigenous Peoples and other marginalized groups.

The Doctrine of Discovery
“…invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit” – Pope Nicholas V (Papal Bull 1452)



Indigenous Peoples in Canada are overrepresented within the homeless population. Indigenous homelessness is fundamentally rooted in the Doctrine of Discovery, yet many people do not know about it. The Doctrine of Discovery is a 600-year-old governing document that led to and justified the original eviction of Indigenous Peoples from their homelands during colonization.

“Settler colonialism is founded upon the eviction of Indigenous Peoples from their homelands: it aims to force Indigenous Peoples out of place, temporally and spatially. Scholars of settler colonialism show that it is a “structure not an event,” and that the process of “settling” Indigenous lands is contemporary, persistent, and present.” – Buhler and Barkaskas, 2023

The Doctrine was used by European monarchies in the mid-1400s to legitimize the seizing and colonizing of Indigenous lands outside of Europe, leading to the forced displacement of Indigenous Peoples. The Doctrine set the stage for Indigenous Peoples to become homeless on their own lands and remains relevant to the context of Indigenous homelessness today, as it is still the basis for Canadian law.

This history needs to be taken into consideration when discussing Indigenous homelessness prevention and SD-EP initiatives. Preventing Indigenous homelessness requires a fundamental shift from denouncing the Doctrine of Discovery to dismantling it.

The National Housing Act
Another historical document that continues to shape the issues of homelessness and eviction today is the 1973 National Housing Act and its gradual cancellation as the federal government withdrew from the provision of social housing.

Through the Act, the federal government began investing in the development of up to 20,000 social housing units per year, and this continued through the 1980s, providing people with safe and secure housing. However, an international economic shift led to government cutbacks in the 1990s, and the programs under the Act were dismantled. These policies laid the groundwork for the onset of mass homelessness as we know it today. This crisis has specifically impacted Indigenous Peoples, continuing the state-backed displacement begun under the Doctrine of Discovery.

Since that time, the federal government has left the issue of homelessness to municipal governments. This has led to communities across Canada testing solutions and responses, such as prevention programs like SD-EP.



The Current Landscape of Homelessness
Thirty years later, mass homelessness in Canada continues to result from society’s failure to ensure that adequate systems, funding, and supports are in place to provide everyone with safe and affordable housing. An array of systemic and structural factors contributes to homelessness, including:

i) Siloed systems that discharge people into homelessness.

ii) Stagnant development in affordable housing and income security programs, compounded by the commodification of housing.

iii) Systemic discrimination.

iv) Continued colonization.

Service providers in the homelessness sector across Canada have spent decades confronted with the persistent growth of the issue and are looking for better ways to respond to homelessness and ultimately prevent and end it.

“If we want to stop people dying in the roads, we invest money in seatbelts, not the emergency department.” – Peter Jacobson, Manager, Youth Services, BCYF, Australia

In recent years, communities have begun to make the shift from managing the crisis of homelessness to preventing homelessness from happening in the first place. This is the context that has seen the emergence of SD-EP programs. However, for these programs to succeed, more direction and support from all levels of government are needed.

Moving Forward
The authors of this blog are researchers with the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (COH) who are working on a project to collect knowledge about SD-EP programs from across Canada. Our goal is to help build community capacity for developing SD-EP programs. Our project includes a literature review, an environmental scan, a national survey, case study interviews, and more. We will use the knowledge gained to co-create training and technical resources for organizations looking to start or improve an SD-EP program.

In trying to understand what allows these programs to succeed, the importance of history has been clear to us: the impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery and the National Housing Act continue to be felt. They influence the systemic and structural barriers that people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity encounter and that SD-EP programs seek to overcome.

In the next blog in this series, we will share insights from our project development and highlight the key learnings that should be incorporated into SD-EP programs.

SD-EP | Shelter Diversion / Eviction Prevention

https://www.homelesshub.ca/blog/evictions-and-homelessness-canada-historical-perspective