The European Court of Justice – The Need for Change in a Changing World

The article, from a speech delivered at the 11th Liverpool Law ReviewAnnual Lecture at The Law School, Liverpool John Moore's University, November 2001, before invited guests and students, considers the role and position of the European Courts in achieving the objectives of the treaties and institutions of the European Union. It examines the current position of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and the implications of the structural changes introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty. The article reflects upon how the future accession to the Union of new Member States may affect that situation. It also considers how changes proposed in the Treaty of Nice, when ratified, will enable the European Courts to meet future demands placed upon them. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Institutional Regimes for Sustainable Collective Housing Stocks

The influence of public policy, property rights and contracts on the sustainability of residential buildings remains largely unknown. This research will use the analytical framework of the housing institutional regime to study the sustainability over time of the housing stock. We aim to produce an inventory of the housing institutional regime in Switzerland, a comparison with the German and Catalan regimes, and policy suggestions to achieve a better sustainability of the housing stock.     

对我国刑事诉讼中先悉权问题的思考

先悉权是刑事诉讼中对维护控辩平衡,促进司法公正,保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人合法权益有着重要作用的一项权利。律师阅卷和证据展示是当今世界各国解决先悉权问题的两种主要制度,二者各有特色。我国目前的先悉权制度还存在诸多不足,亟待改革。但在改革方向的选取上,我们既要学习先进国家的做法,又必须从我国的实际情况出发。     

论暴力拆迁的法律责任

从法律上讲,房屋暴力拆迁行为已经构成犯罪或违法,应当依法予以严惩。我国《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》确认了暴力拆迁行为的法律责任。本文认为,对于暴力拆迁行为,应当按照宪法与法律的相关规定追究其刑事责任、行政责任和民事责任等。要保障暴力拆迁行为法律责任的实现,有必要转变执法观念、强化国家机关的不作为责任,明确司法机关适用法律优先的权力。     

Comment on Shishir Mathur's “do impact fees raise the price of existing housing?”

Abstract

Impact fees raise the price of new homes, which pay the fee directly, and existing homes, which serve as substitutes for new homes. I argue that such fees are excessive because the net economic benefit of additional homes is not included in the calculation and because more efficient financing tools exist. An impact fee actually pushes prices higher than the fee because it is paid when construction begins but collected at the time of sale. Costs are increased by construction period interest and other costs determined as a percentage of the sale price.

Local governments calculate impact fees incorrectly by not including the indirect and positive impacts from construction and occupancy. If these added net benefits were also considered, the fiscal impact would be less and little or no fee would be required. Moreover, other methods for financing infrastructure are available in most states, so impact fees are unnecessary.     

Outlook: The subprime lending crisis: Focus on the problem: Subprime borrowers in trouble

Abstract

Public policy should be directed at serving the large number of borrowers who have recently taken out subprime loans and who are at serious risk of losing their homes when their mortgages reset. Practicing forbearance and providing counseling for defaulting homeowners, as well as allowing them to refinance into a Federal Housing Administration loan, can be particularly helpful. Broad changes in housing programs and in the structure of the mortgage market should be considered on their merits as good or bad public policy for the long term, not simply as solutions to the subprime problem.     

Comment on Victoria Basolo and Mai Thi Nguyen's “Does mobility matter? The neighborhood conditions of housing voucher holders by race and ethnicity”

Abstract

Creating the opportunity for minorities to move away from poor, racially concentrated neighborhoods to better ones is an important goal of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. However, mobility is not its only—or even its primary—objective. Rather, it aims to reduce severe rent burdens for very low income families and individuals.

Basolo and Nguyen imply that the voucher program by itself can overcome entrenched patterns of racial discrimination. This is unrealistic, even when families receive search assistance. Instead, the test is whether a minority family with a voucher is more likely to live in a low‐poverty, low‐minority neighborhood than the same family without a voucher. The program passes that test. However, Basolo and Nguyen's analysis points to the need for more research on voucher use in localities like Santa Ana where overcrowded housing is an issue, in neighborhoods with a mixed minority population, and in specific metropolitan areas.     

Housing vouchers in the United States,great Britain,and the Netherlands: Current issues and future perspectives

Abstract

We compare the current U.S. housing voucher program with the British housing benefit and the Dutch housing allowance programs. After presenting the theory behind income‐related housing support, which underpins both the U.S. and European systems, we compare the three programs with respect to their scope (the budgeted versus the entitlement approach), the relationship between housing support and rent levels, the poverty trap, moral hazards, and administrative problems.

The United States can learn from Great Britain and the Netherlands that a full entitlement program can best promote equity, but given the present political and economic climate, it is unlikely that Congress will adopt such a program anytime soon. Great Britain and the Netherlands can learn from the United States how to design a more efficient tenant subsidy program, one that provides incentives to find less expensive units and promotes family self‐sufficiency through enhanced job‐seeking behavior.     

Evictions: The hidden housing problem

Abstract

Although evictions are a major housing problem that disproportionately affects lower‐income and minority tenants, no systematic data about evictions are collected on a local or national level. This article presents the scattered available data on the magnitude and impact of the problem, along with existing model efforts to reduce its incidence and impact.

Creating a national database on evictions—how many, where, who, why, and what happens to evictees—would be an important first step in focusing attention on this neglected issue. Definitional questions must be resolved as an initial step. In an effort to launch such a project, suggestions are offered on how to begin creating such a database.     

Comment on Chester Hartman and David Robinson's “evictions: The hidden housing problem”

Abstract

Evictions and involuntary moves negatively affecting poor renters present a significant problem. Creating a national database to comprehensively document the magnitude of the problem, however, presents serious difficulties. Most local courts do not publish data on court actions involving evictions. To do this on a national level and to obtain all of the data needed by the authors would require special funding and the cooperation of courts; these are unlikely to materialize. To obtain comprehensive data on involuntary moves beyond the court system would present even greater difficulty.

Improvements can be made in existing protections for tenants vulnerable to displacement without compiling comprehensive national data. Previous examples include the debates over displacement and homelessness. Since legislative and administrative reforms are more likely at the state and local levels, reform efforts, including any data collection, should be primarily focused there.