2018
DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2018.1490242
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Housing and Community Development: Divergent Responses to Austerity Politics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
(2 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, housing cost burdens may continue worsening as the full effects of recent federal government policy including the 2019 decision to eliminate Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are unknown. The full impact and lasting effects of the past four years of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) slashing its budget by over $8 million while simultaneously increasing housing costs for housing program participants is yet to be known (Santiago & Smith, 2018 ). These most recent disinvestments in public housing assistance follow decades of institutional interventions such as public–private partnership housing developments coupled with tax break schemes, voucher systems such as Sect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, housing cost burdens may continue worsening as the full effects of recent federal government policy including the 2019 decision to eliminate Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are unknown. The full impact and lasting effects of the past four years of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) slashing its budget by over $8 million while simultaneously increasing housing costs for housing program participants is yet to be known (Santiago & Smith, 2018 ). These most recent disinvestments in public housing assistance follow decades of institutional interventions such as public–private partnership housing developments coupled with tax break schemes, voucher systems such as Sect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%