My favorite world news service is probably the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). When we lived in London, my wife and I would take walks through Regents Park and on our way home, walk by the BBC Broadcasting House on Portland Place near The Langham Hotel. The BBC is funded by the UK government and is commercial free. All residents living in the UK who watch TV are required to purchase a TV license (£180) which goes towards partially paying for the BBC. I never minded the fee since the BBC produced informative and diverse news.
British news is very different than the major US news outlets. The BBC does more commentary and debates on a wider platform of topics. The service does in-depth stories in regions that US news organizations rarely discuss, such as Africa, India, and southeast Asia. When I first watched the morning BBC Breakfast show, I laughed when news reporters were reading the different London papers and commenting on their editorials. I asked one of my British work colleagues why the BBC, a news station, read the newspapers on TV. He said that he never thought about it. One usually doesn’t question their own culture until exposed to a different culture.
One domestic BBC story caught my attention. The UK government owns 16.7% of all British homes (4.2M of 25.4M UK homes). These public housing developments are spread all over the UK as the government believes that public housing should not be concentrated. For example, we leased a small flat in Mayfair, one of the most expensive areas in central London. Just down our street, there was public housing occupied by UK citizens who could not afford London housing. These low-income residents lived in the heart of London while those who did not qualify for public housing commuted long distances into London because they could only afford to purchase homes further away.
The BBC story was about a woman who lived in public housing. She was fighting the UK government about being moved to another public housing building. She was a low-income single mother of five children. Her public flat had room for her large family. The children were now grown and had moved to other housing. The UK government was moving her to a smaller flat so that a larger family could occupy the government flat. She complained to the government that this flat was “her” flat having lived there for many years. The government told her that she did not own the flat and now that her family situation had changed, she must move. She was very vocal on the TV that the flat was “her” property. When I discussed this story with my British friends, their eyes rolled and they said that the government, out of concern for the welfare of low-income families, had created a culture of entitlement.
One of the administrative staff who worked in my department lived in a public housing building near Mayfair. She had a short commute to the office. Her salary was low and along with being a single mother, she qualified for public housing. She complained to me that the government was slow in repairing her flat, although she did not pay for the rent or repairs. She lived with her boyfriend but told me to keep this quiet as he was not allowed to live in her public flat. Her boyfriend gave her money for staying in her flat, which helped her financially. They had some sort of arrangement to hide him when the UK authorities made unannounced visits. The first thoughts that came to my mind were fraud and entitlement.
Another BBC news story reported that government housing officials were visiting a public building checking for violations. Two officials knocked on a door and a man answered. The officials asked if he lived in the flat and he replied “yes.” They introduced themselves and asked if they could enter the flat. He said no as this was not public housing; he had a lease and showed the officials his lease documents. The government officials realized that the person who received the public housing had leased the public property, then moved to a less expensive flat, thus pocketing the lease differential. The UK government, through compassionate action, had created economic conditions ripe for fraud, on which people capitalized. Subsidized rent in expensive neighborhoods encouraged fraud.
Before you rush towards condemning me for not being compassionate towards low-income people, my wife and I have supported ending homelessness for over a decade. We learned that public housing policy must be designed towards getting people off the streets and into housing, supporting their immediate needs, and helping them become self-sufficient. People should be incentivized towards rising above their low-income status and getting out of public housing. My work colleague living in public housing had little incentive to rise above her low-income threshold since she would lose her public housing and be forced to commute longer distances. She knew how to work the public housing system to gain extra money and how to hide it from the government. Others making higher incomes lived further afield with less disposable income and paid for public housing for low income families through their taxes.
Jesus Christ commands his followers to help their neighbors. The Apostle Paul collected money for the needy faithful in Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:1–9:15). But it is the same Paul who wrote about idleness and the obligation “to earn their own living.” Governmental policies that breed entitlement behaviors are ineffective and go against Scripture: “Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6–13)
