Global problems, such as poverty and war, have redefined the constraints regarding housing. The idea that housing should qualify as an essential aspect of life, and thus should be given free of charge to individuals unable to afford homes, is becoming increasingly popular and widely adopted across the globe. I partially disagree with this stance, as there are major problems surrounding the concept.
On the one hand, inequality is undoubtedly among the most detrimental of problems, and practical solutions are of high urgency. Providing free housing for disadvantaged individuals serves as a major step forward in achieving equality. Despite being highly important, homes are significantly more inaccessible than other necessities due to their price. As a result, issuing free housing for struggling individuals unlocks a major gate to a stable life, which can result in a more prosperous and equal society.
On the other hand, pushing for free housing gives rise to many problems. Complexities regarding how policies revolving around this idea should be defined, the parameters of what is given, and issues regarding legality and verification remain notable hurdles that discourage governments from ultimately applying the framework for non-paid homes. Furthermore, the construction of such housing introduces major problems regarding compatibility and environmental concerns, as there needs to be more land and material reserved for building homes, something that countries such as Singapore lack. Additionally, budgeting is another important aspect, since the same resources spent on this infrastructure can be used to solve other problems instead, further restricting the appeal of non-paid homes.
In conclusion, while providing free housing is a great remedy for inequality, the concept remains too problematic to be practical and applicable. In my opinion, governments should target more threatening global problems, such as war and pollution, before considering giving out homes to disadvantaged people.