Financial actors and governments have gained influence over housing while tenants and people without homes have little say, former United Nations special rapporteur on adequate housing Leilani Farha argues in a Guardian column published Monday.
In Farha’s account, private equity firms, pension funds and real estate investment trusts have helped make homes investment assets, while governments and banks also shape the market. She says these actors benefit as money moves toward real estate’s highest returns and away from public investment in housing. Tenants, people experiencing homelessness and young people unable to enter the market bear the cost, she argues.
Farha’s Copenhagen example concerns rents in buildings owned by Blackstone. She says new tenants in some renovated properties faced rents twice as high. Farha writes that Denmark imposed a five-year wait before new owners can set higher rents under a provision for major renovations, with an exception for qualifying energy upgrades. Housing minister Kaare Dybvad had proposed a 10-year freeze, but Farha says opposition from landlords and pension funds, along with the need to win right-wing votes, led to the shorter limit.
She also points to mortgage bundling and corporate tax exemptions for real estate investment trusts as decisions made without public debate. Farha argues that financial rules shape the housing market while people affected by them have limited say in setting policy.
She cites mortgage securitization as groundwork for the 2008 financial crisis, using that history to underscore her concerns about housing’s role as a financial asset. Her column presents the debate as one over who sets housing priorities: financial actors seeking returns, governments shaping policy, or residents whose homes are affected.
