Monday, April 30, 2007
Why does American law allow housing discrimination against younger (under 55) people? This is a follow up to Friday's post.
Law does not allow a housing development to be restricted to "whites only" (as used to be common before the Fair Housing Act of 1968) or "Catholics only" or "native-born Americans only." So why did the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act make "older people only" acceptable? The most cynical rationale is that older people are well organized and have political clout, so this is why they got their exception. But is there a more reputable justification?
Fifty years ago, one might have said that older people are among the poorest and least powerful members of society, and thus a small benefit to them -- we give them a chance to live among their "kind" -- is a small bone we toss to them. But this sort of argument makes little sense today, when older persons are just about as well off financially as younger people are. Similarly, an argument that they are a small, underprivileged minority that needs protection from the ruthlessness of the market makes no sense today, with about a quarter of the population over 55. From my perspective in Florida, older people have always had market clout, of course, and this power is growing in places across the nation, as the famous "baby boom" generation passes to old age. Is it because older people "deserve" the option to live in discriminatory housing? But this merely begs the question.
The fact that law gives a special privilege to older persons is especially odd in this era, when real estate developers create housing that is designed to appeal especially to certain categories of people -- families with kids, urban yuppies, and even gay couples. There is no doubt that even without the 55-plus law, many condo and housing developments (and not just in Florida and Arizona) would be overwhelmingly filled with older persons. Why does law give a group that holds considerable power in the market even more power, including the power to exclude those who aren't like them? Another cynical argument, which I discussed on Friday, is that local governments like the idea of developments that discourage government-service-demanding children. But such a craven argument falls within the same category as the residents who tried to enforce no-blacks covenants in the 1940s and restaurants that tried to defy the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.
I will say it boldly. In this age of a crowded nation of families and poorer persons searching for affordable housing, there is no cogent social policy justification for a law that permits developments in which younger people are excluded.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances