Pub Date : 2023-03-20DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2186750
Salim Furth, Mary E. Webster
Abstract The city of Minneapolis recently changed its zoning to allow two- and three-family houses in formerly single-family zones, in part with the goal of furthering racial integration. To test whether this policy approach holds promise, we assemble digital zoning data covering the Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area and quantify the relationship between different types of residential zoning and racial and ethnic shares of neighborhood populations. Controlling for neighborhood location, we find that a neighborhood zoned for middle housing, such as Minneapolis’ triplexes, has a non-White population share that is 14 percentage points higher than that of a single-family zoned neighborhood. A neighborhood zoned for multifamily housing has a non-White population share 21 percentage points higher. This is consistent with the argument that upzoning single-family zones to allow middle and multifamily housing can promote racial integration. Our method can be easily replicated in other regions as data become available.
{"title":"Single-Family Zoning and Race: Evidence From the Twin Cities","authors":"Salim Furth, Mary E. Webster","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2186750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2186750","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The city of Minneapolis recently changed its zoning to allow two- and three-family houses in formerly single-family zones, in part with the goal of furthering racial integration. To test whether this policy approach holds promise, we assemble digital zoning data covering the Minneapolis–St. Paul metro area and quantify the relationship between different types of residential zoning and racial and ethnic shares of neighborhood populations. Controlling for neighborhood location, we find that a neighborhood zoned for middle housing, such as Minneapolis’ triplexes, has a non-White population share that is 14 percentage points higher than that of a single-family zoned neighborhood. A neighborhood zoned for multifamily housing has a non-White population share 21 percentage points higher. This is consistent with the argument that upzoning single-family zones to allow middle and multifamily housing can promote racial integration. Our method can be easily replicated in other regions as data become available.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"821 - 843"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46018903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-20DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2173980
I. Ellen
Abstract Imbroscio questions both the significance of opportunity hoarding as a driver of inequality and the feasibility of stopping or moderating the phenomenon. But research shows clearly that both neighborhoods and schools are important contributors to inequality. As for futility, his claim that efforts to address exclusionary zoning will necessarily be thwarted by the flight of the affluent is simply not supported by evidence. In a perfectly integrated U.S., all neighborhoods would be about 12% poor. There is little evidence that poverty rates at this level will trigger flight of nonpoor households. As for his contention that community investments will only fuel dispossession, attracting some higher income residents doesn’t necessarily lead to wholesale resegregation. More fundamentally, Imbroscio’s pairing of these claims (the insignificance of opportunity hoarding on the one hand and the futility of addressing it on the other) begs the question: If opportunity hoarding is unimportant as a driver of inequality, then why is it so difficult to stop it? Why do wealthy, white households insist on living in wealthy enclaves if neighborhood resources matter so little in sustaining their privilege? Finally, as for political infeasibility, it’s hard to believe that the road to tackling exclusionary zoning is more difficult than the road to employee-owned business and worker cooperatives. And, ultimately, it’s not clear why advocates can’t work toward greater spatial equity while also pushing for structural reforms in the labor market.
{"title":"A Response to David Imbroscio: Neighborhoods Matter, and Efforts to Integrate Them Are Not Futile","authors":"I. Ellen","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2173980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2173980","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Imbroscio questions both the significance of opportunity hoarding as a driver of inequality and the feasibility of stopping or moderating the phenomenon. But research shows clearly that both neighborhoods and schools are important contributors to inequality. As for futility, his claim that efforts to address exclusionary zoning will necessarily be thwarted by the flight of the affluent is simply not supported by evidence. In a perfectly integrated U.S., all neighborhoods would be about 12% poor. There is little evidence that poverty rates at this level will trigger flight of nonpoor households. As for his contention that community investments will only fuel dispossession, attracting some higher income residents doesn’t necessarily lead to wholesale resegregation. More fundamentally, Imbroscio’s pairing of these claims (the insignificance of opportunity hoarding on the one hand and the futility of addressing it on the other) begs the question: If opportunity hoarding is unimportant as a driver of inequality, then why is it so difficult to stop it? Why do wealthy, white households insist on living in wealthy enclaves if neighborhood resources matter so little in sustaining their privilege? Finally, as for political infeasibility, it’s hard to believe that the road to tackling exclusionary zoning is more difficult than the road to employee-owned business and worker cooperatives. And, ultimately, it’s not clear why advocates can’t work toward greater spatial equity while also pushing for structural reforms in the labor market.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"789 - 792"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44158190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-17DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2173979
D. Imbroscio
Abstract To account for the extensive inequalities manifest within urban (or metropolitan) areas in the United States, the idea of “opportunity hoarding” has garnered increasing salience. When applied to explain urban inequalities, the focus of opportunity hoarding is on places—especially how residents of affluent, predominantly White residential neighborhoods or political jurisdictions are able to secure a plethora of opportunities for themselves and especially their children, at the expense of those living in less privileged places. I interrogate the account of American urban inequalities embedded within the idea of opportunity hoarding, finding it to be limited in significant ways. In light of these findings, I discuss what a superior account of urban inequalities might look like, and suggest how this account points toward potentially more efficacious strategies to attack these inequalities, perhaps ushering in a more just future for American cities and metros.
{"title":"Beyond Opportunity Hoarding: Interrogating Its Limits as an Account of Urban Inequalities","authors":"D. Imbroscio","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2173979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2173979","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To account for the extensive inequalities manifest within urban (or metropolitan) areas in the United States, the idea of “opportunity hoarding” has garnered increasing salience. When applied to explain urban inequalities, the focus of opportunity hoarding is on places—especially how residents of affluent, predominantly White residential neighborhoods or political jurisdictions are able to secure a plethora of opportunities for themselves and especially their children, at the expense of those living in less privileged places. I interrogate the account of American urban inequalities embedded within the idea of opportunity hoarding, finding it to be limited in significant ways. In light of these findings, I discuss what a superior account of urban inequalities might look like, and suggest how this account points toward potentially more efficacious strategies to attack these inequalities, perhaps ushering in a more just future for American cities and metros.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"770 - 788"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49098020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-17DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2173985
D. Imbroscio
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.
{"title":"Toward a New Project for Equality and Justice—In Housing, and Beyond: A Rejoinder","authors":"D. Imbroscio","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2173985","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2173985","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"812 - 820"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41350592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-15DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2173984
Andrew J. Greenlee
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.
David Imbroscio在重新解读机会囤积和相关政策处方的论点中，提供了对问题要素的误诊的证据，即-à-vis进入和退出假设必然导致对这种行为的常见“规定治疗”的有效性有限。他的前进之路集中在对财富分配工具进行根本性的再平衡，以创造更多的平等——打破囤积。考虑到他的论点，我提出了另外三个前提，要求我们更仔细地审视我们如何对待机会囤积的症状，以一种反映维持它的机制的力量的方式。
{"title":"Follow the Money (Deeper)—A Clinical Diagnosis of Opportunity Hoarding","authors":"Andrew J. Greenlee","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2173984","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2173984","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"806 - 811"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46781625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-15DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2171740
A. Schwartz, Kirk McClure
Abstract The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the largest affordable housing production program in the United States. The program has been the subject of some criticism because it has done an unimpressive job of placing low-income renter households in high-opportunity neighborhoods, especially in suburban jurisdictions. This research examines, at the municipal level, what kinds of communities do not contain LIHTC properties. Communities with no LIHTC properties are compared with places that include LITHC housing in terms of geographic, demographic, socioeconomic, and housing-stock characteristics. The analysis focuses on all municipalities in the US and those that grew in population and multifamily housing from 2010 to 2019. It finds that 72% of all municipalities, and 52% of all growing municipalities contain no LIHTC housing. A logit analysis of the factors that influence the likelihood that LIHTC housing is absent from a municipality finds that the most important predictors are population size, being a suburb in a large metropolitan area, and the percentage of rental and multifamily housing.
{"title":"The Geography of Absence: Cities, Towns, and Suburbs with No LIHTC Housing","authors":"A. Schwartz, Kirk McClure","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2171740","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2171740","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the largest affordable housing production program in the United States. The program has been the subject of some criticism because it has done an unimpressive job of placing low-income renter households in high-opportunity neighborhoods, especially in suburban jurisdictions. This research examines, at the municipal level, what kinds of communities do not contain LIHTC properties. Communities with no LIHTC properties are compared with places that include LITHC housing in terms of geographic, demographic, socioeconomic, and housing-stock characteristics. The analysis focuses on all municipalities in the US and those that grew in population and multifamily housing from 2010 to 2019. It finds that 72% of all municipalities, and 52% of all growing municipalities contain no LIHTC housing. A logit analysis of the factors that influence the likelihood that LIHTC housing is absent from a municipality finds that the most important predictors are population size, being a suburb in a large metropolitan area, and the percentage of rental and multifamily housing.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"963 - 982"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41783698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-14DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2173981
Casey J. Dawkins
Abstract David Imbroscio’s “Beyond Opportunity Hoarding: Interrogating its Limits as an Account of Urban Inequalities” takes issue with the recent scholarly attention given to the concept of opportunity hoarding. Imbroscio worries that opportunity hoarding accounts of metropolitan inequalities place too much emphasis on the role of education and unequal patterns of consumption while ignoring the growing weakness of labor power vis-à-vis capital and the extreme concentration of capital ownership at the top of the wealth distribution. In this comment, I argue that Imbroscio downplays the importance of the institutions that generate metropolitan inequalities in the US. Imbroscio dismisses the two institutional processes that contribute to opportunity hoarding (barriers to the entry of people and the exit of resources) without providing a complete account of how the institutions of homeownership and fiscal decentralization work together to erect barriers to entry and exit. To dismiss entry and exit as solutions to opportunity hoarding without assigning blame to the institutions that stand in the way is to miss the forest for the trees.
{"title":"Bringing Institutions Into the Opportunity Hoarding Debate","authors":"Casey J. Dawkins","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2173981","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2173981","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract David Imbroscio’s “Beyond Opportunity Hoarding: Interrogating its Limits as an Account of Urban Inequalities” takes issue with the recent scholarly attention given to the concept of opportunity hoarding. Imbroscio worries that opportunity hoarding accounts of metropolitan inequalities place too much emphasis on the role of education and unequal patterns of consumption while ignoring the growing weakness of labor power vis-à-vis capital and the extreme concentration of capital ownership at the top of the wealth distribution. In this comment, I argue that Imbroscio downplays the importance of the institutions that generate metropolitan inequalities in the US. Imbroscio dismisses the two institutional processes that contribute to opportunity hoarding (barriers to the entry of people and the exit of resources) without providing a complete account of how the institutions of homeownership and fiscal decentralization work together to erect barriers to entry and exit. To dismiss entry and exit as solutions to opportunity hoarding without assigning blame to the institutions that stand in the way is to miss the forest for the trees.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"793 - 796"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42401804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-13DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2023.2173982
Michael C. Lens
Abstract David Imbroscio offers a useful pushback against groupthink among scholars studying neighborhood opportunity, even if I quibble with the details. Imbroscio sometimes conflates problem definition with solution feasibility, and ultimately points to some solutions to economic inequality that may be even less feasible than those offered by the opportunity enthusiasts. Further, the broader problems of economic inequality are well known to housing scholars, but often lie outside their scope and expertise. Imbroscio does push the field to put community wealth building institutions and options more central to housing and neighborhood scholarship and policy, which bridges macroeconomic issues with neighborhood inequality ones.
David Imbroscio对研究邻里机会的学者的群体思维提出了一个有用的反驳，即使我对细节进行了吹毛求疵。Imbroscio有时将问题定义与解决方案可行性混为一谈，并最终指出了一些解决经济不平等的方案，这些方案可能比机会狂热者提供的方案更不可行。此外，更广泛的经济不平等问题对住房学者来说是众所周知的，但往往超出了他们的范围和专长。Imbroscio确实推动该领域将社区财富建设机构和选择置于住房和社区奖学金和政策的更中心位置，这将宏观经济问题与社区不平等问题联系起来。
{"title":"What is an Opportunity Enthusiast to Do?","authors":"Michael C. Lens","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2173982","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2173982","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract David Imbroscio offers a useful pushback against groupthink among scholars studying neighborhood opportunity, even if I quibble with the details. Imbroscio sometimes conflates problem definition with solution feasibility, and ultimately points to some solutions to economic inequality that may be even less feasible than those offered by the opportunity enthusiasts. Further, the broader problems of economic inequality are well known to housing scholars, but often lie outside their scope and expertise. Imbroscio does push the field to put community wealth building institutions and options more central to housing and neighborhood scholarship and policy, which bridges macroeconomic issues with neighborhood inequality ones.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"33 1","pages":"797 - 801"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48436247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：