There has been increased global activism supporting the right to housing. But in neoliberal governance regimes in wealthy cities of North America and Australia, belief in that right as an effective advocacy tool is weak. This paper focuses on the responses of 30 key affordable housing actors in four cities – Vancouver, Toronto, Portland and Melbourne, the majority of whom reject using the “right to housing” in their organizational work. Fraser’s framework of “rights talk,” “needs talk,” and “interests talk” provide the basis for considering alternative rationales for affordable housing advocacy.
AllmendingerPhilHaughtonGraham. 2012. “Post-Political Spatial Planning in England: A Crisis of Consensus?” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers37 (1): 89–103.
4.
AttohKafui. 2011. “What Kind of Right is the Right to the City?”Progress in Human Geography35 (5): 669–685.
5.
BoudreauJulie-AnneKeilRogerYoungDouglas. 2009. Changing Toronto: Governing Urban Neoliberalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
6.
City of San Francisco (City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors). 2016. Policy Analysis Report: Impact of Supportive Housing on Costs of Homelessness. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco.
7.
DaltonT.2009. “Housing Policy Retrenchment: Australia and Canada Compared.” Urban Studies46 (1): 63–91.
8.
FainsteinSusan. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
9.
FraserNancy. 1989a. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
10.
FraserNancy. 1989b. “Talking About Needs: Interpretive Contests as Political Conflicts in Welfare-State Societies.” Ethics99 (2): 291–313.
11.
GleesonBrendanDodsonJagoSpillerMarcus. 2010. Metropolitan Governance for the Australian City: The Case for Reform. Brisbane: Griffith University Urban Research Program.
12.
GoldMartheStevensonDavidFrybackDennis. 2002. “HALYs and QALYs and DALYs, Oh My: Similarities and Differences in Summary Measures of Population Health.” Annual Review of Public Health23: 115–134.
13.
HarcourtMikeCameronKenRossiterSean. 2007. City Making in Paradise: Nine Decisions that Saved Vancouver. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre.
14.
HarrisRichard. 1999. “Housing and Social Policy: An Historical Perspective on Canadian–American Differences – a Comment.” Urban Studies36 (7): 1169–1175.
15.
HartmanChester. 1998. “The Case for a Right to Housing.” Housing Policy Debate9 (2): 223–246.
16.
HarveyDavid. 2003. “The Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research27 (4): 939–941.
17.
InnesJudithBooherDavid. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London and New York: Routledge.
18.
JacobsHarveyPaulsonKurt. 2009. “Property Rights: The Neglected Theme of 20th Century American Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association75 (2): 134–143.
19.
KaniaJohnKramerMark. 2011. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review Winter: 36–41.
20.
KingPeter. 2003. “Housing as a Freedom Right.” Housing Studies18 (5): 661–672.
21.
LefebvreHenri. 1991 [1974]. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
22.
MarcusePeter. 2012. “A Critical Approach to Solving the Housing Problem.” In Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City, edited by BrennerNeilMarcusePeterMayerMargrit, 214–228. London: Routledge.
23.
MilwardH. BrintonProvanKeith. 2000. “Governing the Hollow State.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10 (2): 359–379.
24.
MitchellDavid. 2003. The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press.
25.
MortensenJens LadefogedSeabrookeLeonard. 2008. “Housing as Social Right or Means to Wealth? The Politics of Property Booms in Australia and Denmark.” Comparative European Politics6: 305–324.
26.
NussbaumMartha. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
NussbaumMartha. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
28.
OzawaConnie. 2004. “Introduction.” In The Portland Edge: Challenges and Successes in Growing Communities, edited by OzawaConnie, 1–8. Portland: Portland State University.
29.
PalmMattRaynorKatrinaWhitzmanCarolyn. 2018. Project 30,000: Producing Social and Affordable Housing on Government Land. Melbourne: Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne.
30.
ParnellSusan. 2016. “Defining a Global Urban Development Agenda.” World Development78: 529–540.
31.
RoyAnanya. 2001. “A ‘Public’ Muse: On Planning Convictions and Feminist Contentions.” Journal of Planning Education and Research21: 109–126.
32.
SuttorG.2011. “Offset Mirrors: Institutional Paths in Canadian and Australian Social Housing.” International Journal of Housing Policy11 (3): 255–283.
WestobyRossWalshKaryn. 2014. “The Role of Collective Impact in the Drive to End Homelessness in Brisbane: The ‘500 Lives 500 Homes Campaign.’” Parity27 (7): 16–17.
36.
WhitzmanCarolyn. 2017. “Participatory Action Research in Affordable Housing Partnerships: Collaborative Rationality, or Sleeping with the Growth Machine?” Planning Practice and Research32 (5): 495–507.
37.
WilliamsMiriam. 2016. “Care-Full Justice in the City.” Antipode49 (3): 821–839.
38.
WitteEllen. 2017. “The Case for Investing in Last Resort Housing.” MSSI Issues Paper 10. Melbourne: Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne.
39.
YoungIris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
