Desmond's Evicted
Matthew Desmond's Evicted is a magisterial work. Not only did he produce an ethnography that conveys the complexities of the lives of the urban poor (through a narrative whose character development rivals the best of contemporary fiction), he also simultaneously undertook a massive data collection project (Milwaukee Area Renters Study) to begin to fill in the giant lacuna in our knowledge about how eviction works within America's cities. Desmond's central thesis (which he supports through both ethnographic and quantitative research) is that the lives of the urban poor, far from being cordoned off from the lives of the middle class and wealthy, are exploited by the middle class and wealthy--in particular, by landlords and other entities (e.g., moving and storage companies) that stand to profit from the poor's vulnerability. Ultimately, however, Desmond recognizes that it is laws (or lack thereof) that allow the poor to be exploited and so considers what kinds of policy changes would keep the poor from being exploited. Desmond isn't pointing fingers in blame as much as he's pulling back the curtain to reveal a structure that allows otherwise normal individuals (with varying degrees of goodness) to either exploit or be exploited. His big picture goal of the book is to have us recognize that lack of affordable housing must be central to any explanation of urban poverty. As I see it, Desmond's book should do for the issue of housing what Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow did for mass incarceration: make the issue so central to public discourse that politicians must address it.
Here's what I take to be Desmond's central idea about why housing in this country is fundamentally unjust: the poor (working or otherwise) end up spending an extremely high proportion of their income (in some cases has high as 90%) on rent. With the move away from public housing in the 1970s, U.S. housing policy has been to utilize the private market by using vouchers. However, in the private market, rents are almost as high for shitty (and dangerous!) apartments where nothing works properly, as they are for nice apartments in a nice part of town. The effect of this ballooning rent is to massively reduce the number of families and individuals who can utilize government vouchers (because there's only so much money to go around). Only one third of poor, renting families receiving any federal assistance, leaving two thirds of those poor, renting families to fend for themselves in the private rental market. The thing is, those families will pay exorbitant rents because they have to (unless they want to live in a shelter--not always a possibility--or on the street). For them, there is no other option.
Here's where the eviction process comes in. A family who moves into a new house will very quickly be behind in rent. When something breaks and they contact the landlord to fix it, they are often ignored. (Desmond notes that for the entirety of the time he rented a trailer he did not have hot water because, despite his multiple requests, the owner neglected to fix it--p. 317.) If they report the condition to the authorities (there are laws, of course, about the condition in which properties must be kept), the landlord will find out that they called. This will almost certainly result in the threat of eviction for that tenant (because landlords fear the expense of the policies being enforced on their properties). Although tenants cannot be formally evicted for reporting a landlord, since tenants are almost always behind on rent, the landlord can just claim that that was the reason (rather than the call to the authorities). Thus, tenants learn not to call the authorities. In many cases, this unwritten policy also applies to 911 calls since (at least in Milwaukee) properties that place too many 911 calls are dubbed problem properties and the landlord of those properties is stuck with a fine (to cover the police trips to the property). Thus, landlords will evict people when they make 911 calls, including when those calls are legitimate. (Desmond describes a case where a woman upstairs is being beaten by her boyfriend. The person who calls 911 is ultimately evicted because of this. Of course, this isn't the official reason she is evicted--she's evicted because she's behind on rent--but it is the real reason. If you doubt this then just consider that almost all poor tenants not receiving federal assistance are behind on rent, but aren't all evicted.) The upshot is that tenants are stuck living in unimaginable conditions and have no recourse, lest they get evicted. Once evicted, it is even harder to find a place live since that decreases the likelihood that any landlord will rent to you. Thus, when you find a place it will likely be even worse and you will have to take what you can get and not complain. In this way, eviction (and, more accurately, the threat of an eviction) enables the exploitation of the urban poor.
There's a mechanism at work here that I think is a very general one that can be seen in other domains, including payday lending and mandatory minimums. It is that of exploiting the disadvantaged precisely because the disadvantaged are easier to exploit. How do the disadvantaged come to be exploited? How could they "let" themselves be exploited? The answer is simple: because they have no other option. If you put humans in a dire situation, they will do almost anything to get out of it, including paying prices for things that they know are unfair. There's just no other option available to them.
It seems to me that this same general mechanism is also at work in the way that mandatory minimum sentences function to get people to plea to a drug felony, even if they an not guilty and even if it is unlikely that there is enough evidence to convict them. If you are facing the prospect of serving 10 or 20 years in prison on a drug charge, you might plea to a lesser charge rather than face the risk of getting convicted. Depending on your circumstances, it could be wise to choose the plea to the lesser charge rather than test your luck with your public defender and a court system that you believe is fundamentally unjust. In fact, plea bargaining to the lesser charge is what many poor, black individuals choose to do (as Michelle Alexander has shown). But it's the same mechanism at work: when it comes to essentials, in this case one's bodily freedom, it is easy to exploit the disadvantaged because they have no other option. (Contrast this with the advantaged person whose trusted lawyer assures them that they shouldn't take the plea because there's no case that can be made against them that could win.)
Speaking of lawyers, Desmond argues that if individuals have a right to a lawyer for criminal court, then they should also have a right to a lawyer for housing court, which they currently don't. 90% of the landlords in housing courts are represented by attorneys whereas 90% of tenants aren't. We know that when tenants are represented, their chances of winning in court are increased.
Desmond's proposed solution to the housing problems that the urban poor face is that we give universal vouchers (to all who qualify rather than to just 1/3 of those who do). However, this will only be effective if we can reduce the cost of rent, otherwise those federal dollars will simply be lining the pockets of landlords, who will artificially drive up the rent. Thus, there must also be a regulation of the fair market value of rental properties. To some this will sound like a lot of government, but in the end it comes down to a question of what we see as basic rights of citizens. According to Desmond,
Here's what I take to be Desmond's central idea about why housing in this country is fundamentally unjust: the poor (working or otherwise) end up spending an extremely high proportion of their income (in some cases has high as 90%) on rent. With the move away from public housing in the 1970s, U.S. housing policy has been to utilize the private market by using vouchers. However, in the private market, rents are almost as high for shitty (and dangerous!) apartments where nothing works properly, as they are for nice apartments in a nice part of town. The effect of this ballooning rent is to massively reduce the number of families and individuals who can utilize government vouchers (because there's only so much money to go around). Only one third of poor, renting families receiving any federal assistance, leaving two thirds of those poor, renting families to fend for themselves in the private rental market. The thing is, those families will pay exorbitant rents because they have to (unless they want to live in a shelter--not always a possibility--or on the street). For them, there is no other option.
Here's where the eviction process comes in. A family who moves into a new house will very quickly be behind in rent. When something breaks and they contact the landlord to fix it, they are often ignored. (Desmond notes that for the entirety of the time he rented a trailer he did not have hot water because, despite his multiple requests, the owner neglected to fix it--p. 317.) If they report the condition to the authorities (there are laws, of course, about the condition in which properties must be kept), the landlord will find out that they called. This will almost certainly result in the threat of eviction for that tenant (because landlords fear the expense of the policies being enforced on their properties). Although tenants cannot be formally evicted for reporting a landlord, since tenants are almost always behind on rent, the landlord can just claim that that was the reason (rather than the call to the authorities). Thus, tenants learn not to call the authorities. In many cases, this unwritten policy also applies to 911 calls since (at least in Milwaukee) properties that place too many 911 calls are dubbed problem properties and the landlord of those properties is stuck with a fine (to cover the police trips to the property). Thus, landlords will evict people when they make 911 calls, including when those calls are legitimate. (Desmond describes a case where a woman upstairs is being beaten by her boyfriend. The person who calls 911 is ultimately evicted because of this. Of course, this isn't the official reason she is evicted--she's evicted because she's behind on rent--but it is the real reason. If you doubt this then just consider that almost all poor tenants not receiving federal assistance are behind on rent, but aren't all evicted.) The upshot is that tenants are stuck living in unimaginable conditions and have no recourse, lest they get evicted. Once evicted, it is even harder to find a place live since that decreases the likelihood that any landlord will rent to you. Thus, when you find a place it will likely be even worse and you will have to take what you can get and not complain. In this way, eviction (and, more accurately, the threat of an eviction) enables the exploitation of the urban poor.
There's a mechanism at work here that I think is a very general one that can be seen in other domains, including payday lending and mandatory minimums. It is that of exploiting the disadvantaged precisely because the disadvantaged are easier to exploit. How do the disadvantaged come to be exploited? How could they "let" themselves be exploited? The answer is simple: because they have no other option. If you put humans in a dire situation, they will do almost anything to get out of it, including paying prices for things that they know are unfair. There's just no other option available to them.
"Exploitation thrives when it comes to essentials, like housing and food. Most of the 12 million Americans who take out high-interest payday loans do so not to buy luxury items or cover unexpected expenses but to pay the rent or gas bill, buy food, or meet other regular expenses. Payday loans are but one of the many financial techniques...specifically designed to pull money from the pockets of the poor" (306).Some might say that in a free market that if someone willingly pays a price for some good or service, then there is nothing fundamentally unjust about that. Desmond shows the folly of this thinking regarding low income housing by showing the kinds of "choices" with which the poor are regularly faced. There's more coercion than choice here.
It seems to me that this same general mechanism is also at work in the way that mandatory minimum sentences function to get people to plea to a drug felony, even if they an not guilty and even if it is unlikely that there is enough evidence to convict them. If you are facing the prospect of serving 10 or 20 years in prison on a drug charge, you might plea to a lesser charge rather than face the risk of getting convicted. Depending on your circumstances, it could be wise to choose the plea to the lesser charge rather than test your luck with your public defender and a court system that you believe is fundamentally unjust. In fact, plea bargaining to the lesser charge is what many poor, black individuals choose to do (as Michelle Alexander has shown). But it's the same mechanism at work: when it comes to essentials, in this case one's bodily freedom, it is easy to exploit the disadvantaged because they have no other option. (Contrast this with the advantaged person whose trusted lawyer assures them that they shouldn't take the plea because there's no case that can be made against them that could win.)
Speaking of lawyers, Desmond argues that if individuals have a right to a lawyer for criminal court, then they should also have a right to a lawyer for housing court, which they currently don't. 90% of the landlords in housing courts are represented by attorneys whereas 90% of tenants aren't. We know that when tenants are represented, their chances of winning in court are increased.
Desmond's proposed solution to the housing problems that the urban poor face is that we give universal vouchers (to all who qualify rather than to just 1/3 of those who do). However, this will only be effective if we can reduce the cost of rent, otherwise those federal dollars will simply be lining the pockets of landlords, who will artificially drive up the rent. Thus, there must also be a regulation of the fair market value of rental properties. To some this will sound like a lot of government, but in the end it comes down to a question of what we see as basic rights of citizens. According to Desmond,
"We have affirmed provision in old age, twelve years of education, and basic nutrition to be the right of every citizen because we have recognized that human dignity depends on the fulfillment of these fundamental human needs. And it is hard to argue that housing is not a fundamental human need. Decent, affordable housing should be a basic right for everyone in this country. The reason is simple: without stable shelter, everything else falls apart" (300).
Comments
Post a Comment