Below the Radar Transcript
Episode 74: The Human Right to Housing — with Leilani Farha
Speakers: Paige Smith, Am Johal, Leilani Farha
Paige Smith 0:06
Hello listeners. I'm Paige Smith with Below the Radar, a knowledge democracy podcast. Below the Radar is created by SFU's Vancity Office of Community Engagement and is recorded on the territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. On this episode of Below the Radar, our host Am Johal is joined by Leilani Farha, a human rights lawyer and Global Director of The Shift, who recently finished her second and final term as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing Am and Leilani are in conversation today about troubling global and Canadian trends in housing, policy opportunities, the importance of having a home during the pandemic, and how international human rights laws can be used to hold governments accountable for ensuring safe and adequate housing for all. I hope you enjoy this important conversation.
Am Johal 1:01
Hi there, welcome to Below the Radar, really excited to have Leilani Farha with us today. I'm a super fan of Leilani's, through being familiar with her work as the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing and she's currently the Global Director of The Shift. Welcome Leilani.
Leilani Farha 1:21
Thanks so much for inviting me.
Am Johal 1:23
Yeah, I just thought maybe we could begin maybe if you could introduce yourself a little bit in terms of the work that you used to do prior to being the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing, and maybe also share a little bit about what that role is for some members of our audience who may not be familiar with what that lofty title means.
Leilani Farha 1:42
Yeah, sure. So before becoming rapporteur or being appointed as rapporteur by the UN, I have just a long history working on poverty issues in Canada, and housing issues both in Canada and internationally. I was the executive director of an organization in Toronto called CERA, the Center for Equality Rights in Accommodation, a big long name for an organization that was really dealing with discrimination in housing. And then after that, I became the Executive Director of Canada Without Poverty. So looking at poverty writ large across the country, I've always had a little foot in the international world really believing strongly that we need to use international human rights law domestically. So we use it to hold governments accountable. So we could, I always felt as an ED here in Canada, that I could use international law to hold Canadian governments accountable to their human rights obligations. So it wasn't in certain ways, a huge step to be Rapporteur on the one hand, and on the other, it was a crazy step, a crazy mind blowing job. I was in the role for six years two three year terms. And it really involves an incredible mix of things. It involves connecting with people on the ground, in their local circumstances, who are struggling in the area of housing, whether they're living in grossly inadequate housing, in informal settlements, or in homelessness and encampments, or whether they're renters and fearing they're going to be evicted. Even sometimes homeowners, you know, living on toxic lands or also fearing eviction, etc. So they're sort of connecting with local communities and apprising them of the fact that a rapporteur exists, that they have human rights, and that they need to have their governments held accountable, and then I can help them in that regard. And that was my role, really, to harness their realities and put them in the face of government. And then on the flip was working with governments and interacting with governments to get them to realize, yes, housing is a human right. Yes, they do have international human rights obligations. And they have to implement housing as a human right, and that that means something. So those were the kind of two big ways in which I acted as a rapporteur. And then there's lots of smaller things you do: you go on fact finding missions, you write letters of concern, or communications we call them, legal letters, all with the aim of trying to hold governments and third party actors accountable to human rights.
Am Johal 4:26
Now, you get a chance to visit a number of countries doing these fact finding missions and country reports as part of that role and gives you a great window into the broader trends on housing happening in a comparative context within nation states, but also globally, and I'm wondering if you can maybe outline what during your period in that role, what are some broad and worrying trends that you see in regards to housing?
Leilani Farha 4:56
I was super lucky as rapporter to be able to go on fact finding missions, I'm not sure my successor is able to do so in light of COVID. And I was super lucky to be able to go to every region of the world. So I was in Africa, North Africa, as well as Nigeria and Cabo Verde, I was in Europe, and including Eastern Europe. I did a mission to South Korea. So I was in Asia, I also went to South Asia to India, on a very big mission. And I was in Chile. So I mean, super lucky, I really got a whole you know, and that's, I say, super lucky, because you have to be invited in by governments. And it happened that governments in every region invited me in. What amazed me were the similarities, not the differences. You expect differences. Of course, you know, is India going to be exactly like Nigeria? Of course not. Is Nigeria going to be like Chile? Of course not. But the similarities were striking. So patterns. Homelessness, never or very rarely being treated like the egregious violation of the right to housing or human rights that it is. Very few governments I met with understood that. Portugal might have been the one exception, where they realized they weren't doing enough, and that, that it was egregious and is an egregious violation. And the upward trend of homelessness in every country that I visited, this is not something that's going away, and not something that is even remaining static, it's definitely a growing phenomenon, including in the affluent countries that I visited, officially, and not a not officially the practice of forced evictions, and that I distinguish from just regular evictions, which I can also talk about, but the practice of forced evictions. I mean, I saw that in every country, actually. Every country, and that's where people are removed from their homes or lands, without their consent, basically, involuntarily. And yes, lots of times people have set up homes on lands that aren't their own. But they do that because they have no other place to live. They don't do that to be criminal. They do that to exist, right? To maintain an existence and forced eviction under international human rights law is a gross violation of human rights. So it's, it's considered very, a very serious infringement. And yet, I saw it across the world. Evictions, which are distinguished because evictions tend to be legal. In other words, they're done using law. And using like here, you know, you're evicted for arrears. For example, you can't pay your rent, you can be served with an eviction notice.
Leilani Farha 8:02
But evictions into homelessness are a violation of international human rights law. And I saw that as a pattern in many, many places. Absolutely. And lastly, I'll just throw out one more thing, which is sort of a pet research interest of mine, which is the financialization of housing. So that's definitely emerging in every country in very different ways, admittedly, but that's where big financial actors move into the area of housing and start purchasing. And the effect of that is often to make the housing unaffordable, it's often rental accommodation. I have to say, I didn't see it in India, in the way that I saw it. For example, in Portugal. Portugal has a golden visa program. Golden visa programs allow foreigners to invest in a country, normally through real estate, you have to make a certain allocation of investment. And then you suddenly become a resident of the country, and even a citizen over time. And that is in in the case of Portugal, that's causing a huge escalation in the cost of housing, in fact that the government has just recently put a cap on golden visas and where where you can invest in property because it was making it impossible to live in Lisbon, for example, or Porto two of the most major cities obviously, in Portugal. But this over financialization of housing, treating it as an investment, treating it as a place to hide capital, a lot of corrupt money in real estate. In fact, they say 80%, I read somewhere, 80% of corrupt money goes into real estate and residential real estate. It's a great place to hide money that I saw as a phenomenon in many, many places. Nigeria, I mean, so you're looking Nigeria, a very different country than Portugal and yet they both have this financialization, the hiding of corrupt money as a very prominent part of their real estate sector.
Am Johal 10:06
And I think it's such an important role. The independence of the UN Special Repertoire has its own balloon, Qatari here, prior to the Olympics in 2010, where clearly there was some gentrification eviction going on, to highlight the voice of civil society was really important. But you see, the City of Vancouver 12-13 years later, despite recommendations being put forward, not acting on them in many ways, the inequalities have been exacerbated and Vancouver's had a crisis of the disconnection between median income and housing prices for a long time both in terms of ownership and rental.
Am Johal 10:48
It's defied economic logic in so many ways the the average cost of a detached house on the west side of the city, Vancouver's 3 million on the east side, the 1.4 million, condo prices are 801,000 on the west side of the city 595k on the east side of the city. And so when we look at what the median income is here, you can see why it's hard to go very far and Vancouver without housing coming up as a social conversations, it inflicts every fiber of its being in so many ways and in in an exceptional pandemic context where people are imagining new policy group blueprints, and also fiscal stimulus packages and ways of reinvesting into the economy. This question of what can government's do? We have CMHC at the federal government, Evan Siddall, the CEO is quite prominent on Twitter, critiquing policies and pieces. But from your vantage point, and having done this job, as UN Special Rapporteur for living in Canada, you must look very closely in the Canadian context. And so my question would be, first of all, let's start with the national government. Where have they failed? And what could they be doing in this context right now where a lot of policy questions are being interrogated?
Leilani Farha 12:17
Yeah, so let's start with where they haven't failed. Let's start with something really cool that they did. So last year, around this time, I think it was July 2019, the national level government adopted the National Housing Strategy Act. Now I know for listeners legislation, sounds boring, Big yawn. But this act is not boring at all. It's super cool, because for the first time in the country of Canada, the right to housing was recognized in national legislation. And it goes even further because it's recognized that it is the housing policy of the government of Canada, that housing is a fundamental human right. So they took this amazing first step last year. So where they need to go now is the follow through. And so there has been, I would have thought in the face of a deadly pandemic, where there is no medicine to cure this. There is no vaccination to protect against this deadly virus, where the only prescription originally offered was stay home, wash your hands and physical distance. I would have thought that they would have used that, those facts, to implement the right to housing. And they haven't done that yet. So what does that mean? So what am I talking about? Well, I'm talking about one, for sure the stay at home policy should have meant ending homelessness in the country. You can't say, oh, the policy of the government of Canada, and every province and territory thereafter is to stay home in the face of COVID-19 but we're not going to end homelessness. It doesn't make sense. That's just okay. I am a lawyer, but I feel like that's like grade five logic, right? And so they didn't, one they didn't show leadership to say we are adopting stay home policy and compliance with the World Health Organization and therefore we are going to commit to ending homelessness. They didn't even say it, let alone try to do it. They did it to increase the amount of dollars for the reaching home and I put that in quotes, reaching home program so they increased the dollars but the dollars weren't enough for cities. That goes directly, sorry, that's money that goes directly from the federal government to cities. There weren't enough dollars to ensure that cities could really end homelessness themselves.
Leilani Farha 15:00
And then cities don't even have the capacity to do that. And we can talk about that separately. So there was what I would call that a failure to implement their own policy. And like when they adopted the stay at home policy, that's a housing policy. And they didn't recognize that they themselves had adopted a housing policy. But in so doing, that should have triggered that legislation where they recognize housing as a fundamental human right. In any event. They could have shown leadership also on the issue of evictions. I mean, I'm sure in Vancouver, it was worse. I mean, the stark figures you gave Am, like just very stark figures, right? Vancouver is one of the most expensive cities to live in, in terms of housing in the world. And I would imagine that it was the same in Vancouver, as it was in so many other places that after about a month of economic instability caused by the pandemic, a lot of people were probably quaking in their shoes that they were not going to be able to pay their rent. After just one month, because average people don't have any savings because they're paying so much out on housing. It's the number one household cost for people in lower income categories. And so the government should have, the national level government should have stepped in immediately, and said, "All provinces and territories must declare a moratorium on evictions." As it happens, all provinces and territories did do that but the federal government wasn't showing leadership. And since then, I think the federal government could have stepped in and, and offered tenants more support, that tenants would receive some kind of rent subsidy or that landlords would receive a rent subsidy, I don't care how it works out. I know some people don't like the idea of lining the pockets of landlords and whatever, I don't care, do what you need to do to make sure tenants remain housed, particularly in the midst of this pandemic. And make sure this moratorium on evictions is extended. Well, that's not what's happened at all, is it? And Ontario has lifted the moratorium, for example. And so, again, it's a question of leadership where you know, and I know, I know what my federal colleagues will say, they'll say, "That's provincial territorial jurisdiction, we can't step on their toes." Well, I don't buy that. We are in a national crisis, we are in a state of crisis. And I'm, I know, a state of emergency that was never declared at national level for a whole variety of reasons. But the government at national level stepped into other provincial areas quite readily. Look, they tried to procure ventilators, well, the procuring of medical equipment like that is absolutely provincial jurisdiction, there's no doubt about it. And yet, the national level government was running around looking for ventilators from other countries and securing those. So I'm sorry, adequate housing access to adequate secure housing is as important during this pandemic, if not more important now, than ventilators. So, you know, where were they?
Leilani Farha 18:22
I do think the federal government should immediately step in and start acquiring properties. And I'm not the only person to say this, I think I was pretty quick out of the blocks, I wrote them a letter early on and said you must do this, there will be distressed assets available. And there will just be assets available, even if they're not distressed assets, and you should move in, use your purchasing power CMHC knows how to make a deal quick and do this stuff. Use Evan and his skills and CMHC to do this. And I just today, as a matter of fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which you know, is a convening of municipalities all across the country, many, many hundreds of municipalities put out an acquisition call to action to the federal government saying you really need to acquire and what you acquire should go toward developing deeply affordable and affordable housing. That was a long answer to your question!
Am Johal 19:22
One of the issues that have come out in BC is that a lot of the national dollars haven't flowed into BC or to Vancouver. And that's a separate issue of rollout of policies. But if one of the big sort of policy questions out there, if we were going to at a macro level retilt the policy instruments to redraw a relationship between income and the cost of housing, where would you go with that policy wise? In terms of if we're starting with it then the national government, the federal government?
Leilani Farha 19:54
Yeah, such a good question, and it's not easy. What I had recommended just like with existing tenants who are struggling in the pandemic, I had suggested that not just that there be a moratorium on eviction, but that landlords be instructed that they not charge more than 30% of anyone's income on rent. And that if landlords couldn't survive if they couldn't pay their mortgages, whilst only receiving 30% of incomes from their tenants, that landlords could then pivot to CMHC and to national level government to receive some subsidy or figure out their plight, but that the primary plight is that of tenants, and that they shouldn't be spending more than 30% of their income on rent at this time.
Leilani Farha 20:53
So and I was told that that's too complicated and all sorts of stuff. Maybe it is, I don't know, why don't you try? I know that in the US, in certain jurisdictions in the US, they are trying that. And so, you know, my, my approach would have been, if you have zero income, you pay 30% of zero, which is zero. And if you're, you know, getting the CERB, you pay 30% of the $2000 that CERB was affording you. And that's that kind of thing. I do think as we look down the road, it would be super interesting if new projects, new builds new repurposing of properties, take as the starting point, low incomes and average incomes, and say, "Okay, we know that the average four person family with one income earner is making this amount, whatever it is, let's say 47,000 a year. What can we do to build, create a unit that is going to be not more than let's say 27% of their household income? What does that look like?" So the starting point should be who do we think this is going to house this building? Well, we know it needs to house people who are living on social assistance, you know, who receive social assistance, and low income earners, minimum wage earners, etc. Okay, so what does that mean? What, what materials are we going to use as we build this? How are we going to build in a way that's cost efficient, etc. But take that as the starting point versus what, as I understand it, and I don't really know that much about the new development of housing. But I think generally, what they take as a starting point is land value. That's where they start.
Leilani Farha 22:49
And then construction costs based on average construction costs, which are incredibly expensive in this country, etc. Rather than trying to figure out new means, based on what, what the income is going to afford that property. I don't know what that would look like in the end, to be honest, again, that's this. I'm a human rights lawyer, this is way outside my bailiwick, but trying to at least engender more creative ways of looking at income as the motivating factor. I mean the other way that new builds happen, as you know, is they're investor driven. It's like, okay, I'm going to build this condo, because I know I can sell three full floors of this in a snap to a single investor, private equity firm, or individual of ultra high net worth, who's going to turn all of those units into Airbnb units, right? I mean, that's just completely building with the wrong starting point.
Am Johal 23:46
Now, you know, forms of market incentivization haven't produced affordability and Vancouver, density bonusing, as a way to produce units hasn't done it. So these sort of market attempts to create affordability haven't landed down on the ground. So in terms of municipal and provincial governments, what do you think could be done when we have examples from other places like Vienna or Berlin, for example, Berlin, where the city bought back apartment buildings. The cities tend to have more regulatory powers related to development, taxation, policies that are beyond usually the regulatory powers of municipal governments right now in the country, but I'm wondering what are some innovative models elsewhere that could land down on the ground here or what are some existing taxation or regulatory pieces that could produce affordability in a way that that market incentivization really hasn't been able to do?
Leilani Farha 24:51
Yeah. First of all, I actually don't want to answer your question directly. To begin with. I want to say that I do think there needs to be, and I'm not the first to say this. I mean for gosh, you know, not the first to say this, there needs to be a new relationship between different orders of government in this country. Some, there has to be a new way for them to work. I've heard you mentioned the lack of rollout of money to BC, and I have heard that part of the stalling I've heard the mayor of Montreal say that there's a stall in money flowing to Montreal from the federal government. It's not acceptable, we're dealing with a human right. It's not we're not we're not dealing with you know, you know, I don't know money for something that's not a human right. This is a human rights area and so all these jurisdictional disputes, etc, are completely unacceptable. While people are suffering living in tents on sidewalks in the 10th largest economy in the world, I mean, it's just, it's absurd. The other day when I was brushing my teeth, probably too much information, but I was thinking, you know, maybe in the era of COVID, maybe federalism is kind of dead. And it just doesn't work. And maybe we need some other kind of arrangement, at least right now. And then from that might spring other things once the pandemic is over, and is under control, etc. So that's just sort of a more sort of macro looking at your question. I have seen some really interesting things around the world at city level in particular, but of course, as you say, different cities have different powers.
Leilani Farha 26:37
For sure, Berlin, and Barcelona are kind of some leading lights. In fact, Barcelona is in the city of Barcelona is in the midst of, I think they just issued a call to action to different orders of government in their own country, saying that they need greater powers and more support from different levels of government to do the kinds of things that they want to do. In particular, they're really interested in rent controls, and rent freezes. Berlin did pass legislation to impose, actually and so did Denmark, I think as a whole. Five year rent freezes. And that's too disincentivize, is that a word? [laughs] Big financial actors from plopping into the residential real estate market and pulling out quickly. Because if there's a five year rental freeze, so rents can't go up for five years, that's very unattractive to an investor who's looking for a quick win, go in, you know, make 20% return every year for three years and pull out. And so those sorts of regulations can be quite effective. In Denmark, they actually called their law, colloquially, the Blackstone law. So Blackstone's a big private equity firm, one of the biggest in the world, and has engaged in this kind of, you know, purchasing of residential real estate and going in quick and coming out quickly, and causing great distress to tenants by raising rents to satisfy shareholders. And so Denmark came up with this Blackstone law to try to prevent that. So they actually said directly to Blackstone, you're welcome into our country, as long as you abide by our laws, and we believe housing is a human right. And here's, you know, we're passing this legislation that was at the national level, but the same thing was done at city level in Berlin and in Barcelona, or I think Barcelona is now looking for a rent freeze. I don't think that that's been secured legislatively. There's been lots of interesting stuff going on around Airbnb, in Lisbon, and in Barcelona, again.
Leilani Farha 29:03
Interesting, in that Lisbon is using the carrot approach, and Barcelona is using the stick approach. So Lisbon has said to Airbnb owners, if you turn your units into long term, affordable housing units available for local residents, we will incentivize that. So we'll give you tax breaks and other benefits. Unfortunately, and this goes to your point, it hasn't been well subscribed, so not such an effective measure. I heard that Deputy Mayor Ana Bailão in Toronto was going to introduce something similar. I'm interested to see if she tweaks it, to try to make up for the fact that Lisbon's hasn't worked very effectively. In Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau has done the opposite. She's said to Airbnb owners, cough up your units. If those units are standing vacant or have been vacant for a year, it's not just Airbnb, it's anyone with a vacant unit for more than a year, we're going to expropriate those. So, you know, she's using a big stick there, and we'll expropriate them, she said, to provide affordable housing to those in need. In particular, I think in both cases, it's key workers that they're really concerned about. So you know, people who are propping up the healthcare industry, for example, and health care services, and others. So I mean, those are just, you know, a couple of interesting things. I think one thing that I don't talk about enough, and I'm just going to put it out there that the city of Seoul in South Korea did, it's a totally different take. And it has nothing to do with the pandemic, but they've set up, well, they kind of declared themselves a bit of a human rights city. And they have set up mechanisms for people to be able to claim their human rights at the local level. And so this is not tinkering with policy at the moment, this is about recognizing that certain areas, including housing, are human rights, and that in order for human rights to be meaningful, people have to be able to claim those rights. So where they feel they've been infringed, they should be able to go somewhere and say, hey, my rights have been infringed. And so the mayor of Seoul, unfortunately, now deceased, set up a whole human rights mechanism where local people in Seoul could go and actually claim their rights. And there were particular provisions around evictions, for example, forced evictions. So if you were forcibly evicted, especially during, you know, bad weather, inclement weather, you could go and make a claim about that at city level, very interesting and quite unique.
Am Johal 31:53
We're seeing some interesting phenomena happen even within the pandemic context where the real estate market is in flux, the prices are holding, and certainly, the condoization allowed for windfall profits. But now we're also seeing big players coming in from Toronto and other places in terms of purchasing rental assets, which weren't the area where the money was flowing into. And I'm just wondering from a regulatory, you know, where we have a scenario where people have bought into their 10th, 12th, 15th property, could there be some sort of escalated taxation that cools off that concentration of real estate? Which really drives up prices and places people in precarious situations. It seems to me that the taxation and the other kind of policy levers that could be pushed to make a more equitable housing context, both for rental and ownership, haven't fully been used. And I'm wondering if you could point out what some of the gaps are that were sort of the low hanging fruit that governments could move on to kind of stabilize a market that's a little bit more sane for people?
Leilani Farha 33:10
Definitely. Yeah, so one of the financial instruments that makes buying up of multifamily family dwellings, apartment buildings, so easy and attractive, is there the instrument is called an REIT, a real estate investment trust. And I mean, it's kind of boring to know all the details about them. But REITs, as they're called, basically allow a single owner to group a whole bunch of buildings or properties into one portfolio, which limits risk because you're grouping sort of higher risk with lower risk. And then they make those available to individual investors, the investors tend to be deep pockets, so pension funds, individuals of ultra high net worth, or at least individuals with a fair bit of money, you have to be making more than 300 grand a year approximately. But it's really those institutional investors that invest in REITs. The reason REITs exist is not just to make it easy to purchase multi properties. They exist because of an act of government, and the act of government was to give them advantageous tax status. They're the only REITs that, excuse me, they're the only trusts that do not incur income tax. So the entity that sets up the REIT doesn't actually pay income tax even though they're getting a cut of the revenues generated from the REIT. The way in which revenues are generated is through rents. So tenants are literally paying huge profits to these big institutional investors. And so one quick fix would be to change the tax benefits of REITs. The minute you do that you would see a curtailment of the number of REITs. I'm sure of it, because it's because of this advantageous tax status that these are established. That's one, two, I think that we should be curbing the number of properties an individual owner can purchase. And so then you say to me, Well, how would we do that? Because they all have these subsidiary companies and, you know, it's like a, you can never tell like, so Starlight's a big purchaser, well, they would just, you know, maybe form a numbered company and we wouldn't be able to tell. So then what we would need is transparency, legislation requiring ownership, complete ownership, transparency, that numbered companies wouldn't be allowed, that real ownership has to be, you know, transparent. So those are I mean, I don't think any of what I've just discussed, if look, if me, a lowly human rights lawyer can think of these things and imagine these things. Surely this can be done. I don't think it's rocket science. [laughs]
Leilani Farha 36:16
You know, those are just a couple of things. If you look at some of the big ones Starlight, Starlight actually has Blackstone as an institutional partner. If you go to Starlight's website, you can see they'll list all the properties that they own. And what you'll see is like this, you know, 100 Dufferin street, 102 Dufferin street, 104 Dufferin street, 106, 108, and so they're owning entire neighborhoods. It's completely unacceptable. I mean, Timber Creek's another one in Ottawa. Timber Creek's a big player, they own this entire neighborhood called Heron Gate, and have been engaged in one of the biggest evictions of tenants this country has ever seen of racialized low income tenants completely. I mean, if they had been prevented from having a monopoly of an entire neighborhood that might have been prevented.
Am Johal 37:10
Leilani, thank you so much for joining us. Any final thoughts, in terms of what we could be looking forward to in housing in this environment?
Leilani Farha 37:21
You know what I've talked so much. I am hopeful that the coming throne speech, I don't know when this is airing, but there's going to be a throne speech in September. I am hopeful that with a new finance minister in place, Chrystia Freeland, that we might see some more progressive movement on the housing and homelessness front in this country. It's desperately needed, the country's in a crisis. You're in Vancouver, you know it better than most. I mean, it's just unacceptable that people would be living on the streets, both in a pandemic and outside of a pandemic. It would be, it's terrible that people are suffering and worrying that they're going to lose the housing that they do have. Something has to be done. So I'm hopeful it's going to come.
Am Johal 38:08
Thank you so much for joining us on Below the Radar. Leilani.
Leilani Farha 38:11
Pleasure, thank you.
[music]
Paige Smith 38:17
Thank you for listening to this important and timely conversation with a Leilani Farha. To find out more information about the work she does go to make-the-shift.org That's make dash the dash shift.org and see the show notes for additional resources. As always, you can keep up with Below the Radar by following us on Facebook at Below the Radar pod and on Twitter at BTR underscore pod. Thanks again for tuning in. And we'll see you next time on Below the Radar.
[music]