| Abstract: | Abstract There is much evidence that the housing voucher program has successfully met its two main goals: housing low‐income families and expanding housing opportunity. Nonetheless, efforts to address the program's limitations could improve success. We agree with Basgal and Villarreal that, on the subject of housing mobility, the focus of Katz and Turner is misplaced. In addition to proposing a solution that does not address the problem, Katz and Turner fail to consider three key points: First, there is no consensus or clear definition of what “mobility” means, how it is measured, and what standard we hope to achieve. Second, the role and impact of family choice in the locational outcomes of voucher holders is a major factor. And third, the considerable trade‐offs in outcomes that result from a greater emphasis on mobility should be examined. |
