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。     

略论商品房预售之定金

在实践中对订立商品房买卖合同前所交付的款项的用语不同,对其性质的判断应依《合同法》第125条关于合同解释的规定探究当事人的真实意思来确定。认购书中的定金具有立约定金和违约定金的性质,因当事人的约定也可具有解约定金的性质,其责任应适用定金的规定。     

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。     

Lists and Lotteries: Rationing in the Housing Choice Voucher Program

This article investigates how the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program rations subsidies. HCV is the largest low-income housing assistance program in the United States. Despite the program’s size, millions of HCV-eligible households go without subsidy each year. Because the demand for support exceeds the supply of subsidies, HCV assistance is rationed through several mechanisms. These mechanisms and their relationship with the HCV system from both the client and administrator perspectives will be discussed. Implications of HCV rationing will also be discussed.     

官邸制的国际比较与借鉴

官邸制是主要针对高级官员的一种住房制度。对于官邸，官员只有居住权而没有产权，任职期间入住，卸任后即搬出。官邸制在国外有着长期历史，许多国家的相关制度已经相当完善，在官邸的适用范围、主要功能、使用管理规定、管理机构、运营维护、监督惩治等方面都有明确具体规定。我国的官邸制尚处于初步探索阶段，借鉴国外官邸制经验，中央政府需要在官邸的建设、分配、使用、管理、监督等方面进行完善的制度设计，建立符合我国基本国情、具有中国特色的官邸制。     

构建健康发展的中国房地产市场对策

目前，房地产市场调控的当务之急在于稳定房价，避免其大幅度的上涨，唯有这样才能稳定民心，促进房地产市场的健康发展。而对房价的调控需要循序渐进不能冒进。政府首先要做的是遏制部分城市商品房价格疯狂上涨的态势，唯有阻止其上涨，才能慢慢的降下房价。若单从价格机制入手，一味打压商品住宅的价格，而忽略宏观上调节等其他影响房地产发展的因素，往往适得其反，必然会限制房地产业的发展。     

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.