Slavery is not a human right
To make it more apt, if a commodity such as housing is declared to be a human right, perhaps all those who own the commodity in excess of their needs should be taxed heavily to pay for homes/shelters for the unsheltered. It is, after all, their opulent greed that is strangulating the market and making home ownership difficult to begin with.
Chattel slaves were compensated with a roof over their head, food, facilities. All their needs were met at the hands of the wealthy. All they had to do in return was work. After all, their owner was entitled to their labor by virtue of paying for them and meeting their needs. Surely the state would never utilize this same reasoning on a populace that's wholly dependent on its provisions.
Who determines need? Who determines excess? We don't need restaurants, entertainment, video games, etc. We should just eat nutritionally complete kibble for humans, and all work solely to ensure everyone else's needs are met.
> It is, after all, their opulent greed that is strangulating the market and making home ownership difficult to begin with.
Prove it. Spoiler: you can't.
If housing was a right, the government would be compelled to provide it for everyone, not matter their income or wealth, as it would have to be nonexcludable.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-janua...
If the US wants to adopt this model as a social program, I would respect the implementation of a strings-free service much more than the strings-attached approach that currently exists. As the article says, eradicating homelessness is more about getting a roof over someone's head than prequalifying them on "good behavior" before doing so. The outcome of the Finnish program is not surprising to me in the least.
Regarding the Finnish "right" of housing, I do have this question... I cannot find the actual program documentation. My question is as follows: if I'm Finnish and make $14 billion euros a year, will the gov still provide me free housing?