Comment on Chester Hartman and David Robinson's "evictions: The hidden housing problem" - Protection or protraction?

Michael H. Schill*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Since the 1960s, judges and legislatures have made it increasingly difficult for landlords to evict tenants even in those instances where tenants have breached their leases. Sometimes, the growth of tenant protections has actually harmed law-abiding tenants by raising costs to landlords and allowing rule-breakers to remain in their apartments. Most landlords and tenants should want a system of laws that provides for both fair and efficient eviction procedures. Tenants should be entitled to legal representation when they are threatened with eviction, but their attorneys should not use the legal system to obtain free accommodations for their clients. In the end, efforts to improve the housing of low- and moderate-income households should rely not on setting up impediments to eviction, but rather on increasing tenants' ability to afford housing and reducing the cost of housing development and operation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)503-515
Number of pages13
JournalHousing Policy Debate
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2003

Keywords

  • Evictions
  • Housing policy
  • Rental housing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Development
  • Urban Studies
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comment on Chester Hartman and David Robinson's "evictions: The hidden housing problem" - Protection or protraction?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this