Toward common ground in the U.S. fair housing debate

ABSTRACT

Recent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have reinvigorated the debate between place-based community development advocates and pro-integration fair housing advocates. This article examines the philosophical underpinnings of each side of this debate. I argue that different positions in the debate reflect different conceptions of the social meaning of housing, and these differences give rise to disparate views of how housing should be distributed. I examine several different conceptions of housing’s social meaning and argue that the community development–integrationist divide is best understood not as a duality but as reflecting 4 distinct perspectives. Despite the differences among positions, there is room for a middle-ground view of fair and affordable housing policy that acknowledges the socially constituted nature of the self and the importance of individual autonomy and choice.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Lisa Schweitzer and the anonymous reviewers for providing helpful feedback that greatly improved this article.

Notes

1. The disparate impact doctrine’s applicability to fair housing cases is currently in flux. Following the TDHCA v. ICP Supreme Court ruling (2015), the case was remanded to the District Court to apply the new standard established by the Supreme Court, and the lower court found no evidence of disparate impact. Though the TDHCA v. ICP case established that disparate impact is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, it is unclear how the new evidentiary standards established in the TDHCA v. ICP case will affect future cases seeking to establish evidence of a segregative effect.

2. Whether current and future administrations will act to uphold this commitment remains to be seen. As of the time of this writing, current HUD Secretary Ben Carson has gone on record opposing HUD’s AFFH regulations, and a bill has been introduced to Congress that would rescind the AFFH regulation and prohibit the use of federal funds to support the AFFH data and mapping tool.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Casey Dawkins

Casey Dawkins is an Associate Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, Director of the Urban Studies and Planning and Urban and Regional Planning and Design Programs, and Affiliate of the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland. His current research focuses on U.S. housing policy and program evaluation; the normative foundations of housing policy; metropolitan housing market dynamics; the causes, consequences, and measurement of residential segregation by race and income; affordable housing and transit-oriented development; and the link between land use regulations and housing affordability.