Do Local Economic Conditions Affect Homelessness? Impact of Area Housing Market Factors,Unemployment, and Poverty on Community Homeless Rates

This article estimates the impact of local housing and labor market conditions on area homelessness using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD’s) annual point-in-time counts of homelessness from 2007 to 2014. In cross-sectional models, the median rent, the share of households in rental housing, and the poverty rate have strong positive impacts on homelessness. Once area-fixed effects are included, only the median rent remains positive and significant. However, fixed-effect models find a positive relationship between poverty and homelessness in communities that maintain right-to-shelter policies, suggesting constraints in shelter bed supply may limit responses of homelessness to changes in economic conditions.     

The Resistible Rise of Rupert Rigsby

SINCE 1986 the number of UK households renting privately has increased from 1.85 million to 5.3 million. This private landlord renaissance has been supported by buy to let investment, tax concessions, subsidies, light touch regulation, the right to buy scheme and housing benefit. However, private landlordism makes only a small contribution to new housing supply, characterised by low quality, adds to state expenditure, increases social inequality and has a negative impact on family life. Following the stark revelation of ‘two Englands’ in the Brexit vote, ways to curb the sector's growth need to have a higher place on the political agenda.     

中国城市住房货币化政策：经济增长与社会公正的博弈

自1998年中国实行住房货币化改革以来，城市居民的住房条件有很大的改善。但近几年，由于城市房价的持续上涨，住房供给的结构性失调以及住房不公平等问题日渐凸显，使住房货币化政策本身成为公秉关注的焦点。住房政策的价值导向是一味地追求经济的增长远是兼顾住房公正，是我们必须深刻反思的重要课题。     

低标准住宅改造的政府定位与模式选择

对20世纪70-80年代修建的一大批低标准民用住房的改造是当前城市面临的一大任务。本文以北京市为例,结合低标准住房存在的主要问题,分析了对其进行改造的目标和模式选择,并重点论述了政府在这一过程中的作用定位。本文的结论是,在目前的条件下,住房改造需要政府主导,但同时政府应当避免高度行政化的思维取向,更多地选择有管理的市场化的路径。     

实现城市出租屋和流动人口有效管理的新思路——以广州市为主要观测点

城市出租屋与流动人口管理是一项复杂的社会工程，其需要社会各种力量与资源的整合。建立一套与动态环境及社会主义市场经济体制相适应的流动人口管理制度和管理机制是必要的。引入市场机制，实行出租屋和流动人口的社会化、产业化、法制化和科技化管理新思路。     

我国个人合作建房若干法律问题探析

在房价持续上涨、住房供求失衡的背景下,个人合作建房确实可以在某种程度上解决中低收入老百姓住房难问题,也能在一定程度上缓解住房市场的供应压力。然而,我国的个人合作建房现状却不容乐观,在具体操作时遇到了重重阻力,步履艰难,质疑声四伏。因此,对我国个人合作建房若干法律问题进行探析是必要的、有意义的,将有利于促进合作建房的健康发展。     

经济适用房"内循环"制度——住房政策社会保障性的回归

《北京住房建设规划(2006-2010)》中提出了经济适用房的“内循环”制度,这一制度的构建标志着经济适用房政策由政策性商品房向保障性公共住房转变。这一转变在实践中将有利于在制度上实现经济适用房的循环使用,切实有效地保障城镇中低收入家庭的基本住房需求。此外,这一制度创新在理论上是从经济政策向社会政策的一次回归,有利于政府应对住房领域日益复杂化的社会问题。     

试析房屋买卖纠纷案件的类型及对策

伴随着我国经济体制改革的深入,房地产业有了长足的发展,由此产生的纠纷不断增多,处理不当易造成矛盾激化,影响社会稳定。本文就房屋买卖合同效力的确认,房屋买卖纠纷案件的类型及对策作以研究,旨在能对实践有所指导。     

Fighting Housing Discrimination in Europe

ABSTRACT

There is no exact European equivalent to the U.S. Fair Housing Act. The member states of the European Union (EU) have transposed into law the EU Racial Equality Directive of 2000 that prohibits discrimination in, among other things, access to the supply of goods and services, including housing, on the basis of race. Most housing discrimination case law so far comes from nonbinding decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and European Committee of Social Rights under the revised European Social Charter of the Council of Europe. This article explains how the European context of discrimination and segregation differs from the American, reviews the major legal conventions establishing equal rights in housing, protected classes, and key precedents. It discusses how mixing policies in social housing are the primary mechanism to reduce residential segregation in Europe. The special case of extreme discrimination against the Roma is presented, before concluding with some comparative observations.     

Fair Housing After “Big Government”: How Tax Credits Are Reshaping the Legal Fight Against Racial Segregation

ABSTRACT

In June 2015, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 split decision, that facially neutral state policies and practices that unintentionally segregated minorities could violate the Fair Housing Act. This article draws on the Texas fair housing litigation to engage broader debates on fair housing as a legal framework, and its potential for disrupting or transforming patterns of structural inequality. Specifically, it examines how shifts in the ways that society designs and implements housing policies may encourage courts, advocates, and legal actors to think about fair housing issues in new ways. Moving beyond the emphasis on disparate impact, my findings elaborate on two mostly overlooked ways that LIHTC reshapes the legal battleground in the fight for fair housing, by opening contentious debate on (a) the state level of government, and (b) passive government administration of policies. I interpret these effects as unintended consequences of the gradual shift toward market-driven policies that allow officials to govern at a distance.