Toward a New Project for Equality and Justice—In Housing, and Beyond: A Rejoinder

Abstract

I offer a rejoinder to the five responses to my article, “Beyond Opportunity Hoarding,” generously provided by Professors Bates, Dawkins, Ellen, Greenlee, and Lens. I argue it is imperative we face soberly three central problematics looming over the current debate: a) the enormity and profoundness of America's urban problems; b) the failure of the Opportunity Project to address these problems; and c) the reasons for this failure. I conclude by reiterating the need for an alternative strategy (or a new Project) to advance equality and justice, one built around a robust and large-scale program of Community Wealth Building. I discuss Community Wealth Building's appropriateness as an area of inquiry and engagement for housing researchers and practitioners, and I consider the challenges confronting its feasibility in light of several salient (and hopeful) political and social developments unfolding in contemporary urban America.

keywords:

• Opportunity hoarding
• resource hoarding
• urban inequality
• urban policy
• community wealth building

Acknowledgements

My deep gratitude goes to George Galster, Acting Editor in Chief of ​Housing Policy Debate, not only for his hard work (and much-appreciated enthusiasm) in putting together this Forum but also for his decades of support and encouragement, despite our contrasting perspectives and viewpoints. Similar gratitude goes to the five excellent scholars (Professors Bates, Dawkins, Ellen, Greenlee, and Lens) who all so generously made the heroic effort to engage my article in a careful, rigorous, thought-provoking, respectful, and fair-minded way. Zelda Bronstein and Preston Queensberry, also quite generously, provided extensive and invaluable feedback on an earlier draft.

Notes

1 Moreover, as Goetz (2018, p. 45) points out, the MTO program was voluntary (indicating a preprogram desire to move on the part of families), making the findings “not generalizable to all households of color, or to all residents of segregated or disadvantaged neighborhoods.”

2 For more extensive critiques of meritocracy applied to American urban policy, see Imbroscio (2016a, 2016b, 2016c).

3 To be fair, he adds by way of critique that “we can probably walk and chew gum at the same time,” as the Opportunity Project policy agenda is “complementary to making progress against the larger forces of economic and racial inequality.” I address this critique immediately below.

4 See, for example, McElroy and Szeto (2017), Marti (2019), Bronstein (2018), Wyly (2022), Imbroscio (2021a, 2021b), Rodríguez-Pose and Storper (2020), Schragger (2021).

5 Although, as a largely one-time phenomenon, there no doubt are some exceptions, especially in a few select “superstar” metros, mostly on the coasts.

6 As seen by its appearance in the first line of the mission statement of Housing Policy Debate.

7 See, for example, Alperovitz (2011), Imbroscio (2010, 2013), Williamson et al. (2002).

8 On this last point, see, for example, Alperovitz (2011) and Guinan and O’Neill (2020), as well as the extensive work of the Democracy Collaborative: https://democracycollaborative.org/

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David Imbroscio

David Imbroscio is a professor of political science and urban affairs at the University of Louisville. The author or editor of six books, including Urban America Reconsidered: Alternatives for Governance and Policy (Cornell University Press), he is a past recipient of the College of Arts and Sciences Award for Outstanding Scholarship, Research, and Creative Activity at the University of Louisville. His most recent work appears in the Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and the City, Urban Affairs Review, and the Journal of Urban Affairs.