Advertisement

Conclusion: Overcoming the Housing Bias for Twenty-First-Century America

Chapter
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

Close your eyes and picture an American household. Okay, you may open them now (which, if you’re reading this, I suppose you’ve already done). Did you picture a mom, dad, and a kid or two? If you did, you’re not alone—studies have shown that most people think of this traditional image. Now guess what percentage of households consists of parents and one or more children? According to the 2000 Census, only about 26 percent—or barely one in four—of all American households include parents and one or more of their kids. This total covers households with stepparents, unmarried couples, stepchildren, and other variations. Now guess what fraction consists of only one person living alone? The answer is just about the same—just under 26 percent. The number of single people has been growing rapidly in recent decades because of a number of factors, including the immigration of solo people to the United States, the fact that young people marry later and divorce earlier, and, perhaps most of all, the growth in the number of elderly single people. When details of the 2010 Census are released, the figures will, no doubt, show that single-person households are now by far the most common type of household. Of the remaining households, the most common is a couple living without any other people, which constituted about 25 percent of households in 2000.

Keywords

Local Government Free Market Affordable Housing Fair Share Metro Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Household composition: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Examining American Household Composition: 1990 and 2000 (2005).Google Scholar
  2. Rental prices: Dina El Boghady and Dan Keating, “Region’s Tenants Caught in a Clamp,” Washington Post, Dec. 21, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122006525.html.Google Scholar
  3. Kensington, Md.: Katherine Shaver, “In Md. Town, Anxiety over ‘Revitalizing,’ “Washington Post, Dec. 21, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005633.html.Google Scholar

Nationwide rental data

  1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Joint Center for Housing Studies, The State of the Nations Housing 2010, http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2010/son2010_key_facts.pdf.

Methods of fighting exclusionary zoning, generally

  1. Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer and Thomas E. Roberts, Land Use Planning and Development Regulation law (St. Paul: Thomson-West 2d ed., 2007).Google Scholar
  2. Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law (5th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

Fair share

  1. New Jersey, Council on Affordable Housing, http://www.state.nj.us/dca/affiliates/coah/about.
  2. Nico Calavita, Kenneth Grimes, and Alan Mallach, “Inclusionary Housing in California and New Jersey: A Comparative Analysis,” Housing Policy Debate 8 (1997) 1, available at http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholary_article/relfiles/hpd_0801_calavita.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Harold McDougall, “From Litigation to Legislation in Exclusionary Zoning Law,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 22 (1987) 623.Google Scholar
  4. Growth share: John Payne, “Remedies for Affordable Housing: From Fair Share to Growth Share,” Land Use Law and Zoning Digest 49 (1997) 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bargaining

  1. Ronald Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics 3 (1960) 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. William A. Fischel, The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  3. Benjamin Harney, “The Economics of Exclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing,” Stetson Law Review 38 (2009) 459.Google Scholar

Discrimination laws

  1. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917) (no racial zoning).Google Scholar
  2. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (no segregation in schools).Google Scholar
  3. Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§3601–3619.Google Scholar
  4. Housing Voucher Program (“section 8”): U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanGoogle Scholar
  5. Federal housing voucher statistics: Budge of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010, Appendix, p. 570, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/appendix/hud.pdf.
  6. Atlanta 2010: Craig Schneider and Tammy Joyner, “Housing Crisis Reaches Full Boil in East Point; 62 Injured,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 11, 2010, http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/housing-crisis-reaches-full-589653.html.Google Scholar
  7. Gautreaux: Greg Duncan and Anita Zuberi, “Mobility Lessons from Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity,” Journal of Law and Social Policy 1 (2006) 1, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njlsp/v1/n1/5/index.htm.Google Scholar
  8. Encyclopedia of Chicago, Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program, http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/507.html.

Levine’s critique

  1. Jonathan Levine, Zoned Out (Washington: Resources for the Future, 2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paul Boudreaux 2011

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations