Life and Liberty in the Pursuit of Housing: Rethinking Renting and Owning in Post-Crisis America

Abstract

The recent housing crisis's devastating effects on U.S. households’ economic situations provides reason to examine the risks, pitfalls and assumptions underlying contemporary housing policy. This paper examines issues associated with renting and owning housing in America. It argues that housing operates as (1) a dimension of the U.S. system of stratification, (2) a method for the unfair distribution of resources in metropolitan space, and (3) a mechanism for the construction of the “other” and as a vehicle for social exclusion. Homeownership restricts people to homogeneous neighborhoods, renders low-income families and renters of all types unacceptable, makes neighborhoods fertile ground for learning who is socially undesirable, breeds class-based distinctions, and puts people in financially risky situations. Rethinking questions about renting and owning may allow consideration of how housing can play a more constructive role in pursing economic opportunities, redistribution and social and economic justice in America.

Keywords::

• Home ownership
• housing policy
• housing tenure

Notes

¹ This conceptualization follows economists’ description of housing as a bundle of attributes.

² These numbers are calculated using Census figures of non-tax adjusted housing costs, which may inflate the percentage of homeowners with excessive housing cost burdens. Schwartz (2010) provides analyses of after tax adjusted homeowner housing costs and the numbers with excessive housing cost burdens are comparable.

³ Homeownership was featured as part of the mission statement of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a reference deleted after the recent housing crisis ensued.

⁴ There is somewhat of a third thrust of housing policy targeted at homeless people. But it is difficult to characterize the composite of activities around homelessness as housing policy per se. It is really a grab bag of programs around providing shelter, treating substance abuse, and getting homeless families access to benefits. Very little of the policies around homelessness is directly related to housing.

⁵ The decision's language is important. It states: With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that, in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities—until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed (Village of Euclid vs. Ambler Reality Company, 1926).