Housing Equity Week in Review

It was a national and international first week of March in housing equity and law. Here are some of the big stories from the field March 6-12, 2017:

  • On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised to cut domestic spending. Now the administration is considering a $6 billion cut to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This could have major effects on programs such as Section 8, which is already notorious for the long waiting period for vouchers. Story from the Washington Post.
  • The Washington Post also reports fair and affordable housing advocates call the proposed budget cut “devastating”
  • The struggle to create “affordable” housing is not only an American problem. Here is an update on what’s going on in Britain, via the Guardian.
  • What does gentrification look like in West Philadelphia? Jake Blumgart via Philadelphia Magazine.
  • The National Low Income Housing Coalition report on affordable housing is out! “The Gap: A shortage of Affordable Homes” shows that we are still 7.4 million units away from meeting the need for affordable rental units for low income households.

Did we miss any big stories? Let us know.

Housing Equity Week in Review

Lots of questions and debate this week in housing equity and law. Here’s the latest for the week of February 21-27, 2017:

  • After a win for the Civil Gideon movement in New York, Next City asks if other cities could follow New York City’s lead and extend the right to counsel to low income tenants facing eviction?
  • There is a known racial wealth gap in the United States. Many attribute the wealth gap to the legacy of housing policies, such as redlining, that did not allow property of people of color to appreciate in the same manner as property of white Americans. Does that mean that today the solution to the wealth gap is in housing? Not necessarily argues Dorothy Brown of Emory University, via Forbes.
  • Diane Yentel, National Low Income Housing Coalition President and CEO, reflects on Mortgage Interest Deduction reform.
  • Bozeman, Montana cites city building and development code as a barrier to housing affordability. The debate on the effects of code continues politically, but is there evidence to back it up?
  • What does a Trump administration and large business tax cuts mean for affordable housing? Developers in California are concerned in the face of uncertainty as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program might become less attractive to banks and investors, via the LA Times.
  • While the research community still debates the extent to which gentrification leads to displacement, a new study in Journal of Urban Health assess the health outcomes of those who stay. Analysis via CityLab, paper here.

Housing Equity Week in Review

Last week, January 23-29, 2017, saw a mix of national and local-level housing news. Here’s our round-up for the past week:

  • Surprising some on the “Warren-wing” of the Democratic Party, Elizabeth Warren came out in support of Dr. Ben Carson as the 17th Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. In the confirmation hearing, Warren asked Carson if he can promise that no taxpayer dollar will go from HUD to developments’ of Donald Trump, then pointing out that it was a trick question since there was no financial disclosure,  no one knows exactly what how or what President Trump benefits from financially. However, due to promises to abate lead in housing and to protect from LGBTQ discrimination in housing markets, Warren decided not to stand in Carson’s way. Coverage via The Hill.
  • President Trump’s pick for Secretary Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, lied during his confirmation hearing about foreclosure practices of One West Bank while he was the chairmen and CEO, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
  • As the population ages, housing needs change. Are we keeping up with the new demand? New York Times opinion piece on the housing needs of the elderly.
  • Bay Area housing prices are going down due to building boom, via the Business Journal.
  • The National Low Income Housing Coalition released a statement in opposition of the Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2017.

Did we miss anything? Let us know!

Code Red

By Gregory M. Lipper

“Not Just Obamacare: Medicaid, Medicare Also On GOP’s Chopping Block,” write Jonathan Cohn and Jeffrey Young in The Huffington Post:

Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have made clear they are serious about repealing Obamacare, and doing so quickly. But don’t assume their dismantling of government health insurance programs will stop there.

For about two decades now, Republicans have been talking about radically changing the government’s two largest health insurance programs, Medicaid and Medicare.

Check out the full, detailed article here.

Greg Lipper (@theglipper) is a partner at Clinton Brook & Peed and the former Senior Litigation Counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“That I Don’t Know”: The Uncertain Futures of Our Bodies in America

By Wendy S. Salkin

I. Our Bodies, Our Body Politic

On March 30, at a town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, an audience member asked then-presidential-hopeful Donald J. Trump: “[W]hat is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health?” What followed was a lengthy back-and-forth with Chris Matthews. Here is an excerpt from that event:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.

Much has been made of the fact that President-Elect Trump claimed that women who undergo abortion procedures should face “some sort of punishment.” Considerably less has been made of the fact that our President-Elect, in a moment of epistemic humility, expressed that he did not know what he would do, though he believed something had to be done. (He later revised his position, suggesting that the performer of the abortion rather than the woman undergoing the abortion would “be held legally responsible.”)

I am worried about the futures of our bodies, as, I think, are many. That a Trump Presidency makes many feel fear is not a novel contribution. Nor will I be able to speak to the very many, and varied, ways our bodies may be compromised in and by The New America—be it through removal from the country (see especially the proposed “End Illegal Immigration Act”), removal from society (see especially the proposed “Restoring Community Safety Act”), or some other means (see especially the proposed “Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act”).

But, I am like President-Elect Trump in this way: Like him, “I don’t know.” I don’t know what to say about what will happen to our bodies or to our body politic. So instead, today, I will take this opportunity to point to one aspect of the changing face of access to reproductive technologies that has already become a battleground in the fight over women’s bodies and will, I suspect, take center stage in the debate over the right and the ability to choose in coming years. Continue reading