Influences on United States housing policy

Burchell, Robert W.; Listokin, David

doi:10.1080/10511482.1995.9521197

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And subsequent legislation had the net effect of not only delegitimizing public housing but incrementally placing the provision of affordable housing more squarely in the private sector through rental subsidies. By the early 1980s, all construction of federally subsidized low-income housing had ceased and the Section 8 programme was recast as a demand-side subsidy for existing private market housing in the form of rental subsidies (vouchers) to qualified tenants (Burchell and Listokin, 1995). Although existing public housing continued to be a widely used source for low-income housing, federal devolution and subsequent funding cuts resulted in a rapidly deteriorating public housing stock.…”

Section: Revisiting Current Policies: the Publicprivate Public Housingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public ownership and private profit in housing

Fraser

Oakley

Bazuin

2011

Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 1937 Housing Act granted local governments the rights to build and operate public housing. And, while this was a significant win for housing advocates, subsequent public housing policies throughout the 20th century ultimately recreated slum-like conditions leading to another round of demolition and redevelopment. Our paper examines this history in order to make sense of current policy initiatives that, in the name of helping the poor, have sought to reclaim these areas for potential private-sector investment and, simultaneously, re-regulate the poor by attaching the provision of housing to the reproduction of labour.

show abstract

Section: Revisiting Current Policies: the Publicprivate Public Housingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public ownership and private profit in housing

Fraser

Oakley

Bazuin

2011

Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of this inclusion was manifest through the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. As Burchell and Listokin (1995) point out, the Fair Housing Act was created originally to eliminate lending discrimination against minorities but was enforced only lightly during the 1970s, and was actively unenforced during the 1980s. The laissez-faire regulatory stance towards the Act began to change somewhat in the late 1980s when Congress strengthened enforcement standards.…”

Section: Opening Home-ownership To Low and Moderate Income Familiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social polarization and the politics of low income mortgage lending in the united states

Hackworth

Wyly

2003

Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structured inequalities of capital investment and disinvestment are prominent themes in critical urban and regional research, but many accounts portray ‘capital’ as a global, faceless and placeless abstraction operating according to a hidden, unitary logic. Sweeping political‐economic shifts in the last generation demonstrate that capital may shape urban and regional processes in many different ways, and each of these manifestations creates distinct constraints and opportunities. In this paper, we analyze a new institutional configuration in the USA that is reshaping access to wealth among the poor – a policy ‘consensus’ to expand home‐ownership among long‐excluded populations. This shift has opened access to some low‐ and moderate‐income households, and racial and ethnic minorities, but the necessary corollary is a greater polarization between those who are able to own and those who are not. We provide a critical analysis of these changes, drawing on national housing finance statistics as well as a multivariate analysis of differences between owners and renters in the 1990s in New York City. As home‐ownership strengthens its role as a privatized form of stealth urban and housing policy in the USA, its continued expansion drives a corresponding reconstruction of its value for different groups, and inscribes a sharper axis of property‐rights inequalities among owners and renters in the working classes.

show abstract

“…2 Consistent with this, Grigsby (1990, p. 833) gives one federal US objective for housing policy as "achieving a societally acceptable level of housing consumption for all persons". Improving affordability is not on Grigsby's list of federal objectives, although more US households have an affordability problem than have any other housing problem (Wallace, 1995;Burchell and Listokin, 1995). The housing standards goal of HUD is consistent with its historical role in encouraging housebuilding (Mayo, 1986).…”

Section: Policy Motivations and Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The allowance amount depends on the recipient's own rent (up to a maximum), not on market-wide rent. Targeting the affordability problem makes sense because affordability, not physical adequacy or suitability, is the most prevalent housing problem of US low-income households (Burchell and Listokin, 1995).…”

Section: Merely a Negative Income Tax?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Housing Allowances in the US under Section 8 and in Other Countries: A Canadian Perspective

Steele

2001

Urban Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Housing allowances are provided in the US by the federal government under Section 8 of the 1974 Housing and Community Development Act. This paper compares the design of Section 8 certi cates and vouchers with that of Canadian housing allowances and with aspects of design in many other developed nations. Distinguishing elements of Section 8 are discussed: its minimum standards condition, its use of a three-way contract in which both the government housing agency and the tenant pays a private landlord, its availability to only a limited number of eligibles, the absence of a percentage-of-rent element in its formulas and the low required contribution of its recipients. It is argued on the basis of an array of diverse evidence that these characteristics lead to perverse housing consumption effects, stigma, rent in ation and unnecessary restrictions on recipient choice. The paper also addresses the standard objections to dropping the minimum standards condition and to incorporating a percentage-of-rent element in the formula.

show abstract

Influences on United States housing policy

Cited by 17 publications

References 8 publications

Public ownership and private profit in housing

Public ownership and private profit in housing

Social polarization and the politics of low income mortgage lending in the united states

Housing Allowances in the US under Section 8 and in Other Countries: A Canadian Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About