scholarly journals The Mirage of Housing Affordability: An Analysis of Affordable Housing Plans in New York City

SAGE Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 215824401880921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bakry Elmedni

In the opening of the 21st century, housing affordability was described by the U.S. Congress as the most urgent issue facing America. This article provides an analysis of how feasible Mayor de Blasio’s Five Borough Ten-Year Plan will be in providing adequate affordable housing to low-income residents in New York City (NYC). It examines three main topics: (a) the Plan’s focus on using the private sector to achieve public goals and whether this is likely to come with unintended consequences such as less focus on the needy and gentrification of struggling neighborhoods, (b) the role of the nonprofit sector, which has historically been a major player in housing policies in the NYC, and (c) how much influence or control a municipal government has on economic forces to avoid negative outcomes. The analysis reveals that while providing any number of affordable units is a positive thing, it is unreasonable to assume that this intervention alone can adequately address the housing affordability crisis in NYC. This article also exposes other emerging problems as the plan is being implemented. One major concern is that through tax credits and rezoning efforts to encourage private-sector development, the Plan may wind up benefiting housing developers and gentrifiers more than actually ameliorating the housing crisis in NYC. Housing affordability is a multifaceted issue which requires a multifaceted approach from federal and state governments working in tandem with local governments.

Author(s):  
Sue-Mari Maass

Recent case law shows that vulnerable, previously disadvantaged private sector tenants are currently facing eviction orders – and consequential homelessness – on the basis that their leases have expired. In terms of the case law it is evident that once their leases have expired, these households do not have access to alternative accommodation. In terms of the Constitution, this group of marginalised tenants have a constitutional right of access to adequate housing and a right to occupy land with legally secure tenure. The purpose of this article is to critically analyse a number of legislative interventions, and specifically rent control, that were imposed in various jurisdictions in order to provide strengthened tenure protection for tenants. The rationale for this analysis is to determine whether the current South African landlord-tenant regime is able to provide adequate tenure protection for vulnerable tenants and therefore in the process of transforming in line with the Constitution. The legal construction of rent control was adopted in pre-1994 South Africa, England and New York City to provide substantive tenure protection for tenants during housing shortages. These statutory interventions in the different private rental markets were justified on the basis that there was a general need to protect tenants against exploitation by landlords. However, the justification for the persistent imposition of rent control in New York City is different since it protects a minority group of financially weak tenants against homelessness. The English landlord-tenant regime highlights the importance of a well-structured social sector that can provide secure, long-term housing options for low-income households who are struggling to access the private rental sector. Additionally, the English rental housing framework shows that if the social sector is functioning as a "safety net" for low-income households, the private sector would be able to uphold deregulation. In light of these comparisons and the fact that the South African social sector is not functioning optimally yet, the question is whether the South African private sector is able to provide the required level of tenure protection for struggling tenants. Recent case law shows that tenants are at liberty to lodge unfair practice complaints with the Rental Housing Tribunals on the basis that the landlords' ground for termination of the lease constitutes an unfair practice. The Court defined an unfair practice as a practice that unreasonably prejudices the tenants' rights or interests. This judicial development signifies some transformation in the private sector since it allows the Tribunals to scrutinise landlords' reasons for termination of tenancies in light of tenants' personal and socio-economic circumstances. The Tribunals are therefore empowered to weigh the interests of both parties and decide whether to confirm termination of the lease or set aside such termination. In light of this recent development, the Tribunals can provide strengthened tenure protection for destitute tenants on a case by case basis, which incorporates a flexible context-sensitive approach to the provision of secure housing rights in the landlord-tenant framework. This methodology is similar to the German approach. Even though this judicial development is welcomed, it raises some concerns with regard to landlords' property rights and specifically landlords' constitutional property rights since Tribunals are now at liberty to set aside contractually agreed grounds for termination of leases without any statutory guidance. The legislation fails to provide any information regarding legitimate grounds for termination, which might have to be rectified in future. The grounds listed in the rent control legislation should serve as a starting point to determine which grounds for termination of a lease should generally be upheld. However, German landlord-tenant law shows that a statutory ground for termination of a lease should not be imposed in an absolutist fashion but rather place a heavier burden on the tenant to prove why the lease should not come to an end.


2018 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 888-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenya Yu ◽  
Chen Chen ◽  
Boshen Jiao ◽  
Zafar Zafari ◽  
Peter Muennig

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elvin Wyly ◽  
James DeFilippis

In American popular discourse and policy debates, “public housing” conjures images of “the projects”—dysfunctional neighborhood imprints of a discredited welfare state. Yet this image, so important in justifying deconcentration, is a dangerous caricature of the diverse places where low–income public housing residents live, and it ignores a much larger public housing program—the $100 billion–plus annual mortgage interest tax concessions to (mostly) wealthy homeowners. in this article, we measure three spatial aspects of assisted housing, poverty, and wealth in New York City. First, local indicators of spatial association document a contingent link between assistance and poverty: vouchers are not consistently associated with poverty deconcentration. Second, spatial regressions confirm this result after controlling for racial segregation and spatial autocorrelation. Third, factor analyses and cluster classifications reveal a rich, complex neighborhood topography of poverty, wealth, and housing subsidy that defies the simplistic stereotypes of policy and popular discourse.


Epilepsia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 1431-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma K.T. Benn ◽  
W. Allen Hauser ◽  
Tina Shih ◽  
Linda Leary ◽  
Emilia Bagiella ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. S359-S359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan C Correa ◽  
Ginger L Chew ◽  
Patrick L Kinney
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 974-982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosuke Tamura ◽  
Brian Elbel ◽  
Basile Chaix ◽  
Seann D. Regan ◽  
Yazan A. Al-Ajlouni ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document