Abstract
In his argument for a rereading of opportunity hoarding and related policy prescriptions, David Imbroscio provides evidence for the misdiagnosis of elements of the problem vis-à-vis the entry and exit hypotheses consequentially resulting in limited effectiveness of common “prescribed treatments” for this behavior. His way forward focuses on a fundamental rebalancing of the instruments through which wealth is distributed to create more parity—a breaking up of the hoard. Thinking about his argument, I offer three additional premises that ask us to look more closely at how we treat the symptoms of opportunity hoarding, in a way that reflects the power of the mechanisms that sustain it.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Small banks are defined in this case as those with $1 billion or less in total assets.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Andrew J. Greenlee
Andrew J. Greenlee is an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research addresses the governance of housing and neighborhood change.