Prof. Andrew Scherer, Policy Director of New York Law School’s Impact Center for Public Interest Law
What is more important in terms of impact – right to counsel or rent law?
There are two very different kind of measures. They are not competitive, they are complementary. If you have a good law but you can’t take an advantage of it, then a good law is not enough. If you have lawyers but the law is bad, they are not going to be able to find the law to protect people. So, it’s complementary and you can’t really separate them.
Is the sequence of these measures (first right to counsel and then rent law) important?
I think it´s very helpful to have right to counsel in place. I think the fact you have attorneys examining what’s going on in court can help to see the big picture (where the problems are) and then inform legislator whether the law is adequate to protect people. They work together nicely; they are both important.
What do you think about rent control?
I think it’s definitely necessary. We need to address the gap between what people can afford to pay and what they legally require paying, but without regulation we will have so much homelessness as we already have now.
And what about other measures such as housing voucher?
I think we need more universal measures for housing affordability. No question. We have public housing, we have federal system of housing vouchers, we have a variety of state programs, city programs that will supplement rent and provide rent subsidies. So, if you have that but you don’t have any form of rent control, then how would you determine what is reasonable rent for the government to pay supplement?
When we talk about government, don’t you think that public officials should be more inspired by already effectively working programs elsewhere?
Sure. That happens all the time. In 2017 we passed right to counsel here and since then five other jurisdictions have passed it and dozens are looking to adapt the similar measure. Wise public officials will pay attention what has been done elsewhere – programs and approaches that work – and they will adapt them to be used in their own jurisdictions, but there is lot of people who don’t think that way and who are not open to new ideas.
Which measure is most effective?
Right to Counsel is indispensable. You have to have that. But in terms of other public policy measures I do think it is new construction, housing vouchers, affordable housing; all is critical. And directly related to evictions having both rent regulations, and what we call “good cause” of evictions.
Shouldn’t we therefore put more emphasis on permanent than transitional housing?
If it´s about making temporary shelters, transition, you don’t really address the problem. Let’s get enough of affordable housing as the solution of homelessness. I think homelessness it not a problem of the homeless people, it´s a housing problem. We don’t have enough of affordable housing.
To what extent it would be possible to reduce homelessness by reducing evictions?
It has a big impact, it does the best in keeping people in their homes which is great, but we don’t have enough of affordable housing. Homelessness is not a separate problem; it is actually housing problem. It´s like a game of musical chairs. You can say what’s wrong with that one person he didn’t get a seat – is that person alcoholic or mentally ill – or you can say we don’t have enough of chairs and of course somebody is going to be homeless. And that’s how you define a problem.
(Interviews with Jan Maloch, PIQASO)
