A/HRC/34/51 37. Financialized housing markets create and thrive on gentrification and the appropriation of public value for private wealth. Improved services, schools or parks in an impoverished neighbourhood attract investment, which then drives residents out. The transformation of an old railway line in West Chelsea in Manhattan into a public walkway and park has attracted wealthy investors to a mixed income neighbourhood, radically transforming it with luxury housing units costing in the multimillions, and displacing longer term residents. 43 In Vancouver, the opening of new public transport facilities in Burnaby, one of the few remaining areas of affordable rental housing, has quickly led to the development of expensive condominium towers, displacing residents who have not only lived there for decades, but also invested in developing their community. 38. Patterns of inequality are often starkest in developing countries. In Africa, if current trends continue, the number of households living in informal settlements will continue to increase while the number of ultra-high-net-worth individuals is predicted to rise by almost 50 per cent in the next decade.44 E. Relinquished governance and accountability 39. The financialization of housing has dramatically altered the relationship of States to the housing sector and to those to whom they have human rights obligations. Rather than being held accountable to residents and their need for housing, States’ housing policies have often become accountable to financial institutions and seem to pander to the confidence of global credit markets and the preferences of wealthy private investors. Given the predominance of housing-related credit in many economies, domestic housing policy becomes intertwined with the priorities and strategies of central banks and international financial institutions, which are themselves rarely held accountable to States’ human rights obligations to ensure access to adequate housing and do not meaningfully engage with rights-holders.45 40. Accountability to global finance rather than to human rights has been rigorously imposed by the International Monetary Fund and other creditors when Governments have faced foreign debt crises. Decisions made by central banks and finance ministers in consultation with international financial institutions are rarely informed by input from stakeholders or those involved with housing policy and programmes. Processes put in place to address the debt crisis in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe through the “Vienna Initiative” for example, brought together “key stakeholders”, identified as national central banks and Western European parent banks along with multiple regional and international financial institutions. Absent were civil society groups and anyone representing the interests of borrowing households, the people most affected by any decisions taken. 46 41. In circumstances where Governments should be relying on positive measures and resource allocation to provide housing to households affected by economic downturns and widespread unemployment, many have been held accountable to austerity measures imposed by creditors. They have agreed to dramatically reduce or eliminate housing programmes, privatize social housing and sell off massive amounts of housing and real estate assets to private equity funds. 43 44 45 46 12 Kevin Loughran, “Parks for profit: the High Line, growth machines, and the uneven development of urban public spaces”, City & Community, vol. 13, No. 1 (March 2014), pp. 49-68. Knight Frank Research, “The Wealth Report 2016”, p. 13. Ray Forrest, “Globalization and the housing asset rich”, Global Social Policy, vol. 8, No. 2 (2008), p. 168. See Daniela Gabor, Central Banking and Financialization: A Romanian Account of how Eastern Europe became Subprime (New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).