Abstract

With the advancement of technology, particularly mobile apps, many consumers can attain services by sharing with other individuals instead of dealing with formal businesses. Sharing is not only a method for people to obtain cheaper service or goods as consumers, but it is also a way for them to make extra income on the side by providing goods or services at a cheap rate in exchange for avoiding industry regulations. There are many apps, including but not limited to Uber, which has avoided taxi-related regulations by dubbing their services as “ride-share” instead, DoorDash for food delivery, and Airbnb for housing-share. The rapid growth of these apps has slowly driven law-abiding businesses out of the market; many taxi services have folded. These apps also have competition; food delivery and ride-share services, for example, have many apps choices. However, Airbnb has become the de facto name in the online marketplace for temporary lodging, primarily through room share despite other similar services.

 

Keywords: sharing economy, rental properties, housing policy, occupancy tax, policy evaluation, Airbnb

 

 

Many cities have seen an increase of rental homes, and concerns about rising traffic and rents, mainly due to the ever-increasing popularity of online short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018). Wachsmuth and Weisler (2018) believe that Airbnb overlaps both residential rentals and hotel accommodation market. Furthermore, it introduced what they have called “a new potential revenue flow into housing markets which is systematic but geographically uneven, creating a new form of rent gap in culturally desirable and internationally recognizable neighborhoods” (p. 4).

The sharing-economy, especially for rental properties such as Airbnb, is just one example of alternative marketplaces that lower transaction costs compared to traditional organizations in the industry in exchange for reduced barriers associated with entering the market (Leoni & Parker, 2019). As a result, I believe it should be regulated because it can have negative external effects on their surrounding neighborhoods and destabilize industry logging and safety standards. To address this, I will outline the problems and propose solutions from scholarly research articles. Also, I will note the policy tools that will address the problem and provide a brief analysis of the evaluation of the solution.

Problem Identification

In many ways, Airbnb positively contributes to local communities, such as allowing travelers to live like a local and spend their money within areas that do not typically cater to tourism (Kaplan & Nadler, 2015). Economically, one study found that Airbnb guests tend to stay longer than hotel guests, spending less money on lodging, which in return allows them to spend more money on local businesses (Kaplan & Nadler, 2015).

Nevertheless, “Airbnb’s business model has been particularly controversial because it so clearly flouts existing housing and land-use regulations” (Wachsmuth & Weisler, 2018, p. 4), while hotels and vacation rental industries strive to keep up with the ever-changing building codes. A comprehensive study compares Airbnb listings in Texas against the quarterly revenue of Texan hotels; the finding is that for every 1% increase in Airbnb listings, there is a 0.05% decrease in hotel income (Gurran & Phibbs, 2017).

Furthermore, apart from a reduction in revenue from tourist taxes, the policymakers will also see long-term units removed. Airbnb threw off the affordable housing supply because it distorts the housing markets in two ways (Lee, 2016). First is conversion, resulting from commercial investors purchase residential properties to turn them into permanent rental accommodation (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018). Put simply; long term residences are taken off the market and rented out to tourists. On the other hand, a second method is a form of converting a residential, single-family living space that was meant for long-term into short-term hotels or simply “hotelization,” as Lee explained (2016, p.230). For instance,  16,300 new housing units in New York were permitted for rent on Airbnb out of the total 23,200 units completed in 2016 (New York City Rent Guidelines Board, 2017). Nieuwland and van Melik claimed that “Airbnb activity has negated around half to three-quarters of a year’s worth of new housing supply in the city” (2018, p. 27).

In addition to the economic impact of affordable housing, ethical issues also become problematic (Kraft & Furlong, 2018). The act of renting a room in a house one owns is sometimes considered exempt from anti-discrimination laws (Biber, Light, Ruhl, & Salzman, 2017). Airbnb initially allowed hosts to refuse service as they see fit and, perhaps unsurprisingly, it eventually became an ethical issue for hosts to engage in practices that resemble a violation under federal housing discrimination laws (Biber, Light, Ruhl, & Salzman, 2017). Even though there has been no statistical research on that topic, there are qualitative studies done on racial, discriminatory complaints that have been shared online and became viral regarding private rentals.

All the political, social, and ethical problems that have been identified in this section further push forward my agenda that private rentals should be regulated, with attention paid to their enabler, Airbnb. I have developed a table of a logic model, where I create an objective, list the input/output, and hypothesize the outcome.

Table 1.

Policy Evaluation Logic Model

Goal: -Improve the compliance of the sharing economy. -Increase the standards of private listings to industry requirements.
Objectives	Inputs	Outputs	Outcomes
-Identify illegal Airbnb listings of private residence-based zoning regulations. -Identify listings without proper life safety mechanism, such a smoke detector. -Hold private hosts accountable for the local laws or ordinance in place.	-Participation from the city or the State to fund and employ enforcers to monitor listings online. -Cooperation from Airbnb to implement policy changes on their interface. -Engagement from local community members to report illegal listings in a particular zoning district. -Obedience from the hosts to register the online licensing system to hosts on sharing platforms, install fire extinguishers, etc.	-Increase in participation of the online licensing system. -Issue warnings and citations to violators. -Removal of illegitimate listings. -Increase the number of funds collected from logging tax or fines from the violators.	Short-term: With proper safety mechanisms enforced, the overall safety of the dwelling will increase, which also increases the life of the building. Medium-term: Lodging tax collected will be an external revenue for the government, who can then use the fund to improve the enforcement program or other public programs. Long-term: Promotion of equal business practices, which will help the hotel industries from being driven out of the market by private rental on the sharing platform

Note. From “Evaluating Regulations on Private Properties in the Sharing Economy” by Chen, S., 2020, Augusta University.

 

Description of the Economic and Social Environment

Airbnb had a humble start in San Francisco in 2008, created by graduate students who are aiming to offer a low-cost alternative to hotels (Vinogradova, Leickb, & Kivedal, 2020). Airbed and Breakfast (later became Airbnb) offer a travel method of “couch surfing with strangers” (Lee, 2016, p. 232). For both long- and short-term stays, Airbnb is a unique business between rental apartments/real estate and hotel/hostel industry (Interian, 2016). It is also notable that travelers on Airbnb pay a lower premium than they would in a hotel. They are likely to spend more on economic activities, which will stimulate job growth as Zhang and Chen (2019) have confirmed a positive effect between the proportion of employment and Airbnb supply. Nevertheless, Lee (2016) claims that the city’s affability crisis may easily overshadow the benefit. This platform presents a double-edged sword for municipalities (Vinogradova et al., 2020). Since its emergence, Airbnb had initially enjoyed a period of non-regulation.  Within time, however, the platform and practices drew the attention of policymakers.

In California, especially in Los Angeles, the public housing infrastructure poorly protects low-income homeowners and renters. Many residents spend up to 47% of their income on housing that has an average rent cost of nearly $1,800 in 2014 (Lee, 2016), and the cost continues to swell today. Airbnb, at that time, merely started as a way to supplement their cost of living. Nevertheless, under Airbnb’s facilitation, the residential and tourist markets have melded together on an unprecedented scale (Lee, 2016). This platform’s resemblance to those industries raises concerns on how to deal with taxation, regulations, and ethical issues.

Demonstrating just how exponentially and spontaneously Airbnb listings can grow, Lee’s study identified that six years after its inception in 2008, Airbnb hosted over 11,000 listings while there have only been 97,000 hotel rooms in Los Angles in the period of a hundred years of history (Lee, 2016). The disparity in growth from Airbnb is astronomical between the two.  A similar phenomenon is present in other places in the country. Zou (2019) discovered that Airbnb listings have surged around the end of 2016 in Washington, DC. Considering the events occurring around that time, which included the President’s inauguration and the Women’s March, Airbnb’s listings exceeded 9,000 in one city alone, and most of the listings at that time do not have reviews, indicating that they are fairly new (Zou, 2019). In the area closer to the White House, there were as many as 1,000 to 1,200 listings per square mile (Zou, 2019).

Empirically, previous research from Nieuwland and van Melik (2018), claimed that short-term rentals resulted in property increase or rent, especially in areas like downtown with heavy tourist traffic. Zou (2019) also later identified that the property price premium is transmitted to the rental housing market, which will cause long-term renters to pay more rent over time. According to Zou’s calculations from the statistical data during the surge of Airbnb listings in Washington, DC, in 2016,  it is evident that “Airbnb alone could account for an increase in single-family property price by 0.66% to 2.24%” (2019, p. 12). Zou (2019) determined that there is a 0.64% increase in property prices within a 200-foot buffer in Washington, DC. The study further suggests that unregulated grown in Airbnb created inequitable property price premium that could distress first-time home-buyers and negatively affected long-term renters if the price premium results in higher rent (Zou, 2019).

Externalities of Airbnb have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on the social and economic environment, such as causing the permanent housing stock to dwindle in communities, especially in expensive cities for housing and tourism. As short-term housing on Airbnb generates more profit than long-term rentals, it would encourage landlords to do away long-term leases and create a housing problem for living residents (Interian, 2016). Policymakers will see gentrification, including a surge in displacement even in the homeless population. For example, the foreclosure crisis in Los Angeles, which took place around 2010, has pushed over 100,000 former homeowners into the rental market (Lee, 2016). Lee (2016) claimed that wealthier residents populated the city that resulted in gentrifying the low-income areas predominately occupied by immigrants, such as Chinatown. In the study by Zhang and Chen (2019), they concluded that Airbnb allocation is predominately in the central areas of cities, such as Los Angeles or New York.

As the popularity of the listings grows, many issues within cities such as unruly behavior from the travelers and noise ordinance claims increase. Many neighborhood councils contend that Airbnb is enabling hosts to violate zoning codes, and allege rowdy travelers undermine public safety (Lee, 2016). Also, travelers take up resources that live-in residents pay for, such as trash service and parking spaces. Hotels, a much-regulated industry, pay sales tax and occupancy tax to its city in order to accommodate their travelers. Moreover, hotels are kept up with safety, health regulations, occupancy taxes, zoning laws, etc., all the while taking a hit on the economic losses due to emerging competition from Airbnb and furloughed workers (Lee, 2016).

Besides the economic impact, discrimination brings a demonstrable social impact, which can contribute to violence, displacement, and inequity. Farmaki and Kladou (2020) also explained that there are underlying increases in criminal activity and mental health illnesses that extend from discrimination. They believe that a qualitative approach, unlike the statistical, quantitative analysis, is more appropriate for a peer-to-peer business model in the sharing economy. They believe, as do I, that this approach will allow firsthand experience and depict a clear picture of the environment in the world of Airbnb (Farmaki and Kladou, 2020).

In the qualitative study done by researchers, Farmaki and Kladou (2017) observed in a series of interviews that hosts have biases starting from just the name of any travelers who sent inquiries to their listings. A name could give a hint on the traveler’s nationality. The host could create more associations with the person’s religion, for example, which all together could become more of a reason for the renter to be unethically treated. On the other hand, travelers might unwittingly cause a problem for the hosts due to being different in the community, from something as simple as practicing energy savings to failures to conform in ethnic and cultural norms (Farmaki and Kladou, 2020).

In addition, Farmaki and Kladou (2017) found that gender issues, particularly due to co-habitation, can be controversial in its perspective. While female hosts consider a safety reason only to accept female travelers’ bookings, Airbnb (2018) considers that discrimination.  It is, hence, another reason why Airbnb is promoting resources online, helpful tips, training videos, and other resources to inform and educate both hosts and guests. Through sharing experiences on Airbnb, many hosts also had an opportunity to interact with people that are different from them and break preconceived prejudices. All in all, it could be a positive mutual sharing experience.

Policy Analysis

I attest that these bursts of the business in sharing economy are disruptive from a legal perspective. The sharing platform economy is evidently destabilizing the industries in which it is gaining traction (Biber, Light, Ruhl, & Salzman, 2017). How policymakers ought to respond depends fundamentally on the values they want their regulations to promote, including efficiency, innovation, and protection of the public interest (Biber, Light, Ruhl, & Salzman, 2017).

A complicated perspective is that Airbnb itself is not breaking the law. Still, according to Gurran and Phibbs in 2017, many Airbnb hosts are violating public zoning regulations and private covenant and lease agreements. Local planners need to evaluate the potential impact of online house-sharing on the potential housing market as well as the neighborhood impacts, including but not limited to noise, congestion, and safety. They need to revisit zoning and residential development controls accordingly (Gurran & Phibbs, 2017). Gurran and Phibbs recommended that “All planning efforts should be supported by a strong policy framework for monitoring the impact of Airbnb rentals on the availability and cost of lower-cost permanent rental accommodations, and ongoing research and analysis to understand implications for local neighborhoods and housing markets fully.” (2017, p. 91).

Airbnb, a leader in the peer-to-peer sharing economy, should be held accountable for unethical practices by its hosts, and the negative externalities that it has on other law-abiding industries (Interian, 2016). The sharing economy is a very new business practice and very dynamic; it is hard for policymakers to create laws and regulations that will fit the business model and update them as it changes. So, how are Airbnb and its hosts classified? Understanding that relationship could help to clarify Airbnb’s position within public policy. Indeed, it is not unusual to equate Airbnb hosts with hotels; however, Airbnb is not a hotel because hosts’ private property is not considered a “public house” (Interian, 2016). As a result, laws for hotels do not apply explicitly to Airbnb due to the fundamental differences (Interian, 2016).

Many could view hosts as independent contractors; however, there is no official recognition of that relationship in the United States, given the fact that Airbnb places very few requirements and restrictions on the hosts for them to be contractors. Similar sharing-service, according to Interian (2016), Uber failed to prove that its drivers are independent contractors in many legal battles, one notably in Massecuites. Uber is banned in many cities outright, while there is no complete ban of Airbnb anywhere in the U.S. (Interian, 2016).

A joint venture is also another way to look at Airbnb and its hosts. The requirements to establish a joint venture are as follows: 1) implied agreement, 2) common purpose, 3) shared profits, and 4) equal control of the project (Interian, 2016). Airbnb argues that not all elements as hosts’ properties are private. In the end, the United States has not been able to define a legal term for a business relationship between Airbnb and its hosts.

Furthermore, both entities, the host and the Airbnb platform, receive direct compensation from the transaction paid by the traveler to providing the accommodation; thus, it is assumed that both are accountable care to the travelers (Interian, 2016). Nevertheless, the Communications Decency Act in 1996 helps clarify Airbnb’s liability for the content posted by its hosts on the website. The publisher, Airbnb in this case, is liable as a speaker since it is either partially or fully responsible for creating the content (Interian, 2016).

Regulation Examples Across Different U.S. Cities

Airbnb-based tourism threatens both traditional hospitality industries and the neighboring real estate and rental market in the community (Vinogradova et al., 2020). In this case, a marketing failure should prompt policymakers to take action to regulate private businesses. The U.S. only has focused on mandating insurance coverage and collecting tourist taxes, yet much still needs to be done to remediate the permanent housing losses (Interian, 2016). A simple tax on Airbnb alone will not likely be enough to de-incentivize hotelization or to fund other social and economic issues such as displacement (Lee, 2016).

From a planning perspective, functional zoning ordinances and effective zoning board play critical roles in regulating Airbnb (Zou, 2019). Studies have shown that revising zoning ordinances can confine and balance Airbnb listings expansion. This can be accomplished by issuing and limiting licenses.  One of the ways that Denver, CO, had implemented to regulate Airbnb by establishing an entirely online licensing system in which hosts self-certify. It was a challenge to communicate it to hosts and to persuade them to comply with the new regulations (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018). I feel that online registration is the most logical option for an industry that also happens completely online; enforcement officers look at Airbnb listings on the website, which is required to indicate a license number.

For example, through the online licensing system, Denver is treating individual Airbnb hosts as responsible businesses, rather than treating the platform itself as a whole. Signing up on Airbnb to host without a license is a violation. First-time violators get a notification, additional violations due to non-compliance can lead to steep fines up to $1,000 a day, or a complete withdrawal of the license if non-compliance continues after the notification (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018).

In 2015, Los Angeles mayor announced that the city would levy a 14% occupancy tax on travelers who book on Airbnb, which is estimated to generate about $5 million annual revenue (Lee, 2016). The revenue will then go towards the Affordable Housing Trust fund, which was only $19 million. Money collected from this tax will help fund the construction of affordable units. Taxation deducts the uneven concentration of Airbnb listings in the study found by Vinogradova (et al., 2020). In addition, Los Angeles has also approved a limitation stay duration for travelers; any extended stay will require special approval (Vinogradova et al., 2020). In the study, Vinogradova (et al., 2020) conducted a simulation that noted that a 20-day duration affects the volatility of the market, while a 15-day limit creates a deeper drop in listing counts and should stabilize the long-term rental market. However, as a counterpoint, for example, it is illegal to rent out an entire house or condo for less than 30 days in New York (Wachsmuth & Weisler, 2018).

Airbnb’s website includes local regulations and laws in the jurisdictions that apply to listings depending on their location (Airbnb, 2015). Under its general regulations, Airbnb (2015) encourages hosts to look up any local taxes or business license requirements that may apply when creating a listing; the platform took a step further and created local regulation pages for dozens of popular cities in the United States. These concessions all serve to help the renter ahead of time before issues arise. However, Airbnb (2015) also made a clear disclaimer that does not serve as a formal tax or legal adviser.

Additionally, the ordinance requires all hosts to “have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a fire extinguisher to ensure guests’ safety” (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018, p. 10). To mitigate nuisances in the neighborhood, it also demands hosts to display local ordinances on parking, noise restrictions, and trash collection. Lastly, hosts are “required to pay a 10.75% lodging tax” (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018, p. 10), which is poised to create a fair, even traditional lodging industry standard and generating income for the municipality.

The social issues, on the other hand, also need to be addressed. Americans have a long history of discrimination and reforms through the civil rights movement. The Fair Housing Act was enacted in 1968 to provide fair housing throughout the United States, which means that it is illegal to refuse any person based on race, religion, sex, nationality, and disability. This act has had a positive impact on minorities who have been historically marginalized. Airbnb itself boosted anti-discrimination policy after evoking criticism from several pieces of evidence and persistent stories on travelers who were poorly treated by their host, especially due to racial issues (Ert, & Fleischer, 2019). Before creating an account, Airbnb (2018) requires its users to agree to their nondiscrimination policy.

The platform now allows users to use a digitally generated avatar rather than an actual photo, according to Farmaki and Kladou, in 2020. The platform took measures to reduce the prominence of guest photos in the booking process with objective information (Ert, & Fleischer, 2019). It also introduced an instant booking feature (Airbnb, 2016), that in theory, reduces the chances of the hosts to screen their potential travelers. The platform also strongly pressure hosts to enable a feature on their rental listing for higher ranking host status, known as “Super Host,” on its website (Airbnb, 2016). This status symbolizes an objective trust indicator for hosts to present to their travelers, which has a positive effect on their visibility (Ert, & Fleischer, 2019). Without instant booking, hosts are more likely to be penalized for any for delayed response time. Not only will it affect their “Super Host” status, but it will also be documented and presented on their profile for future, potential travelers to see and make their conclusions before booking (Airbnb, 2016).

To create trust, Airbnb has established well-monitored rankings, ratings, and reviews as instruments to build a user’s digital reputation and serve as a preview before connecting renters and rentees (Leoni & Parker, 2019). Ultimately, Airbnb, in addition to serving as a facilitator, is also the mediator that holds the authority over suspending accounts (Leoni & Parker, 2019). While Airbnb collects an 8 to 18% commission fees from both hosts and travelers (Wachsmuth, & Weisler, 2018), it places closer evaluations on hosts. These implementations to the system would uphold their ability to list rather than the traveler’s ability to book.

The Public Policy Impact

To see the economic impact in Los Angeles, Lee (2016) expressed concerns that Airbnb rental removes 7,316 units year-round in the city, given the city’s low vacancy rate. Even if Airbnb listings stop expanding, it could theatrically take up to 457 years to fund the full replacement with the rate of the revenue earned from occupancy tax. The policy has made a minimal impact if it has made any at all. The rate units are lost to a short-term sharing platform is much faster than the rate cities can build a long-term housing replacement in its place. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (2014), a unit with an average of $132 per night for 219 days a year would generate almost $29,000 for the hosts but around $4,000 for tax revenue. If one public affordable long-term unit in Los Angeles is $315,000, it will take over 80-years alone on occupancy tax funding. (CDHCD, 2014).

While larger cities, Los Angeles, Denver, New York, have begun regulating Airbnb listings, smaller cities may not see a similar impact. Augusta, GA, does not require hosts to have a license. Travelers pays 8% occupancy Taxes and Airbnb (2019) remits these taxes on the behalf of the host. I have been a host of Airbnb for a little while, and I have not seen any municipal regulations on the platform. The city of Augusta has been known for its short-term rental market for the world’s biggest golf tournament, the Masters Tournament, for many decades. It may be possible that regulations would be introduced down the road; however, I foresee that it would overhaul the whole Masters rental economy as well.

Regarding social impact, since Airbnb created and implemented guidelines in 2018 to address discrimination issues, the platform still relies on both hosts and travelers to fulfill them and report any incompliance (Farmaki & Kladou, 2020). For the Airbnb’s policy regarding anti-discrimination, there are still ways for hosts to decline reservation requests without affecting their rating. While “Instant Booking” is highly encouraged, it is only optional, and hosts can continue to screen their travelers by rejecting an inquiry or canceling a booked reservation. Understandably, many hosts wanted to retain their rights to select travelers for their private properties (Farmaki & Kladou, 2018). In Ert & Fleischer’s study (2019), the exclusion of hosts’ profile photos from the main search screen has seen an even increase in booking inquiries across the platform, which increased objectivity of overcoming discrimination. Moreover, the “Super Host” status forms a uniform trust in the platform.

Much pressure is placed solely on the host and not the travelers, as they are just as capable as having bias and unruly behaviors (Farmaki & Kladou, 2018). Furthermore, Airbnb’s policy on review and cancelations rating places an unfair, negatively impacting the hosts rather than the travelers. For example, hosts are much more likely to face the threat of a listing removal for a negative review. As a result of the Goodhart’s law, Airbnb listings showcase overwhelmingly positive reviews and thus unwittingly introduced statistical bias as Airbnb strives for information symmetry (Zou, 2019). The reviews are effectively influenced, likely due to the constant pressure to rate positively imposed by the Airbnb onto the hosts, and then from the hosts to the travelers.

Evaluative Criteria

Policy evaluation assesses whether policies and programs are working well, supported by evidence that is achieving its stated goals and objectives. It also involves political judgments regarding the program’s worth and making decisions based on those judgments (Kraft & Furlong, 2018). It seems that the measure of regulation Airbnb is currently functioning at a trial-and-error stage, rather than a statistically proven effective political structure (Vinogradova et al., 2020).

To evaluate Denver’s policies, I need to determine the possible flaws of online enforcement. Airbnb protects its hosts by not sharing the exact address until payment is accepted. Nieuwland and van Melik (2018) noted that hosts avoided being detected by enforcement officers by simply taking down listings during office hours and by putting them back up again in the evening after work hours when web traffic in general increases. On top of that, the sharing economy and the virtual market is very dynamic, with hosts starting and quitting each month, making it hard to keep up with listings(Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018).

To evaluate the policy in Los Angeles, I will revisit the 14% tax on Airbnb facilitated rentals, as stated by Lee (2016). Arguably, Airbnb listings are listed intermittently, and it would take “457 years for occupancy taxes to fund the full replacement of the housing units that Airbnb removes” (p. 245). In the study from Vinogradova (2020), the experiment shows that imposing taxes will result in the removal of unstable listings from the market.

If Airbnb listings need to take full responsibility for covering the cost of the units that it removes, it would require a higher tax rate. Lee (2016) suggested that 21.8% will fund around $25,200 in taxes over four years. The occupancy tax still does not address the overall market increase in rent and continued displacement in neighborhoods. Depending on where the new units are built, it could still be unclear whether the long-term residents displaced by the short-term platforms will benefit from the new units (Lee, 2016).

According to Kraft and Furlong (2018), out of the many reasons governments engage in policy and program evaluation, costs may be amongst the most important. With the policies implemented, the government should have revenue through licensing registration, or the collection of lodging tax collection and violation fines. In return, this revenue stream will continue to fund the enforcement officers and the program. The effect of the policy implemented should decrease in the number of listings after the implementation of the regulations. The strengthening in oversight should deter bad actors, potential scammers, or hosting locations that do not meet the zoning requirements to list on Airbnb. In December 2016, the city of Denver started with 4103 listings right after the ordinance was implemented, and the number dropped to 3768 after six months; it eventually plateaued around 3540 (Nieuwland & van Melik, 2018).

All the policies dealing with the sharing economy in Denver contribute to alleviating negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. There is much more work to be done to regulate the fast-growing sharing economy. The dynamic technological innovation means that the problems of emerging business models will increasingly clash with traditional regulations. Designing regulatory structures that are not only resilient to protect society from harm, but also flexible to facilitate the development of new business models, will remain a challenge for policymakers (Biber, Light, Ruhl, & Salzman, 2017).

Applying Evaluative Criteria to Alternatives

When judging the merit or value of government policies, policymakers should consider multiple options and propose policy alternatives. There are four criteria, in particular, that Kraft and Furlong (2018) suggest: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and political feasibility.

In the case of Los Angeles, while the increase in occupancy tax could help, there are ways to increase effectiveness. The mayor should also address how to handle illegal listings that violate zoning regulations, unauthorized residential conversions, or discrimination in practice (Lee, 2019). A penalty or fine could be established in Los Angeles, similar to Denver. Secondly, since hosts can lease their property through Airbnb at a lower price point than hotels and thus earn a premium (Lee, 2016), they should be strictly enforced to file income tax on Airbnb transactions. It should be a universal requirement for every city in the United States, which would be a way to help increase revenue for the States as well. The city could also use the fund to promote economic diversity by spending it on municipal housing voucher programs that will spur economic integration.

For political feasibility, policymakers who are seeking to regulate Airbnb must make both economic and value-driven decisions in order to balance Airbnb’s cost and benefit (Lee, 2016). Especially for issues of displacement, Los Angeles should blanket ban landlords who evict or displace residents without fault to become hosts for short-term guests (Lee, 2016). Also, the city should ban renters and lessees who do not own the property to host on Airbnb. The only requirement is written approval from the landlord (Airbnb 2015), which is easily forgeable and hard to authenticate. I deduce that this could also cause a problem with the accountability of property owners. In some ways, it could obscure property damage or enable a renter’s ability to make income from Airbnb with no risk inherent from owning property.

Vinogradova (et al., 2020) suggest that while modern taxation may have a stabilizing effect on the sharing market. To promote equity, policymakers should consider time-based resections that could potentially contribute to a more even distribution of Airbnb listings across urban space. It is suggested that the number of licenses per year should be limited to avoid rapid hotelization (Lee, 2016). Alternatively, the city of Los Angeles could continue to place targeted restrictions on them and focus on enforcement (Lee, 2016). It means that the city should crack down on large-scale operators who manage multiple rooms across the city.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In the world today, the internet has been ever-changing and consumes a growing portion of our daily lives. Innovations of the internet brought creativity to businesses while seemingly making our lives convenient on a surface level. If not properly regulated, the internet could bring a permanent negative externality with an enormous impact. In return, the issues that we will have to deal with down the road will not be worth the convenience. The benefits that sharing and peer-to-peer business brings should not validate the deterioration of the current system.

Furthermore, while the current system already complies with a law that was in place, it should not become outdated. No one law fits the needs of all cities; thus, it is up to policymakers to understand the needs of their perspective city and restore the balance in the housing market. When examining policy alternatives, policymakers must make use of policy analysis, according to Kraft and Furlong (2018). As Interian suggested, “in the absence of legislative adaption, the present interpretation of §230 should reflect the internet’s rapid development and stop protecting content that empathetically violates local federal law” (2016, p.160).

As a company, Airbnb has begun to understand its economic and social impact and implemented a policy on its website. The government needs to focus on measuring the success of their policies and hold Airbnb accountable for any flaws. This will also require Airbnb to continue to update its effort to enforce compliance.

Undoubtedly, Airbnb helps struggling residents to make extra income by sharing their rooms (Kaplan & Nadler, 2015), and it also boosts affordable traveling. Nevertheless, there is a silver lining to foster collaboration between public policy and a private entity, such as Airbnb and its hosts. If appropriately regulated, Airbnb could be a smart path to building private/public partnership that is mutually beneficial. Although the effects of regulation and its reinforcement still need more testing and evaluation, in time, policymakers will find the best way to resolve the negative externalities while preserving the positive externalities that are brought by Airbnb, a peer-to-peer business model in the sharing economy.

References

Airbnb. (2015). Responsible Hosting [Policy Statement]. Retrieved from https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1376/responsible-hosting-in-the-united-states

Airbnb. (2016). What is Instant Book? [Policy Statement]. Retrieved from https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/523/what-is-instant-book

Airbnb. (2018). Nondiscrimination Policy: Our Commitment to Inclusion and Respect [Policy Statement]. Retrieved from https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1405/airbnbs-nondiscrimination-policy-our-commitment-to-inclusion-and-respect

Airbnb. (2019). In what areas is occupancy tax collection and remittance by Airbnb available? [Policy Statement]. Retrieved from https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/2509/in-what-areas-is-occupancy-tax-collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-available

Biber, E., Light, S., Ruhl, J., & Salzman, J. B. (2017). Regulating business innovation as policy disruption: From the model to Airbnb. Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(5), 1561-1626. https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/

The California Department of Housing and Community Development, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, California Housing Finance Agency, & the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee. (2014). Affordable Housing Cost Study: Analysis of the Factors that Influence the Cost of Building Multi-family Affordable Housing in California. Retrieved from: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/affordable_housing.pdf

Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996).

Ert, E. & Fleischer, A. (2019). The evolution of trust in Airbnb: A case of home rental. Annuals of Tourism Research, 75, 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.01.004

Fair Housing Act 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 804-805 (1968).

Farmaki, A. & Kladou, S. (2020). Why do Airbnb hosts discriminate? Examining the sources and manifestations of discrimination in host practice. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 42, 181-189. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.01.005

Gurran, N. & Phibbs, P. (2017). When tourists move in: How should urban planners respond to Airbnb? Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 80-92. doi:10.1080/01944363.2016.1249011

Interian, J. (2016). Up in the air: Harmonizing the sharing economy through Airbnb regulations. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 39(1), 129-162

Kaplan, R. & Nadler, M. (2015). Airbnb: A case study in occupancy regulation and taxation., University of Chicago Law Review Online, 82(1). https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu

Kraft, M. & Furlong, S. (2018). Public Policy, Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: C.Q. Press, an imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lee, D. (2016). How Airbnb short-term rentals exacerbate Los Angeles’s affordable housing crisis: Analysis and policy recommendations. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 10(1), 229-254. Retrieved from https://harvardlpr.com/

Leoni, G. & Parker, L. (2019). Governance and control of sharing economy platforms: Hosting on Airbnb. The British Accounting Review, 51(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2018.12.001

New York City Rent Guidelines Board. (2017). 2017 Housing Supply Report. Retrieved from https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/17HSR.pdf

Nieuwland, S. & van Melik, R. (2018). Regulating Airbnb: How cities deal with perceived negative externalities of short-term rentals. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(7), 811-825. doi:10.1080/13683500.2018.1504899

Vinogradova, E., Leickb, B., & Kivedal, B. (2020). An agent-based modeling approach to housing market regulations and Airbnb-induced tourism. Tourism Management, 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104004

Wachsmuth, D., & Weisler, A. (2018). Airbnb and the rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(6), 1147–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18778038

Zhang, Z. & Chen, R. (2019). Assessing Airbnb logistics in cities: Geographic information system and convenience theory. Sustainability, 11(9), 2462-2473. doi:10.3390/su11092462

Zhenpeng Zou (2019): Examining the impact of short-term rentals on housing prices in Washington, DC: Implications for housing policy and equity. Housing Policy Debate, 30(2), 269-290. doi: 10.1080/10511482.2019.1681016

Abstract

With the advancement of communications technology, discussion on social issues has become rampant, especially regarding the disparity due to income inequality. The existing inequality in income is perceived to benefit the wealthy, giving them a privilege above others and creating a disparity in the justice and education system. The disparity that we will focus on includes the impact that privilege has on securing better chances for advancement and receiving leniency in a criminal penalty. On the other hand, some people believe privilege is not evident, and that it is nothing more than a method for the poor to victimize themselves. The goal of this study is to provide evidence of inequality and disparity caused by unbalanced and unprecedented income levels. This paper aims to explain the different perceptions of privilege and is a conceptual analysis of the following questions:

• Identify different hypotheses of perception on privilege based on income.
• Explain the methodology of the research methods.
• Discuss different perceptions in inequality.
• Explain the reasoning behind the different perceptions.
• Provide evidence of disparity due to inequality and its negative impact.
• Discuss any limitations of the study and any ideas for future research on the topic.

Keywords: privilege, perception, income inequality, social mobility, disparity

 

 

Concept Selection

When one group receives additional benefits, another group becomes oppressed as the resources are finite. Privilege is the causation of the oppressed. Bob Pease, a professor of social work, believes that to solve the problem, we need to look at fixing the cause and not the result. Nevertheless, many politicians’ focus has been on what the oppressed can do instead of identifying the disparity caused by the privilege of the wealthy. In 2010, Pease noted that “we cannot understand oppression unless we understand privilege” (ix). He argued that many people with privilege do not even realize that they have it. My theory, echoing his sentiment, is that people who have lower income are likely to see more inequality and benefits for the rich; likewise, people with higher income are less likely to recognize their benefits or realize the disadvantage of others with low income. In this report, we will review the literature regarding the perspective on income inequality, state my hypotheses, analyze data and variables, and summarize the findings.

With news coverage regarding the disparity in treatment between the low and high-income group, it is understandable that many people feel that the wealthy has leverage over almost everything than the poor. According to a study from Louisiana State University, Americans can have different beliefs about increasing income inequality, based on their political ideology and media exposure (Xu & Garand, 2010).

Political influences also played a significant role in establishing the perception of wealth. Policies made by each political party can fluctuate a corporation’s wealth and the benefits for the impoverished followers for each party, which will establish a persistent attitude and opinion towards inequality. John Chambers from St. Louis University has collected may polls and surveys in his research (2015). He noticed a pattern that liberals tend to be unhappy with inequality and often underestimate the chances of social mobility, while conservatives will overestimate conversely. Low-income and minority groups tend to be liberals, and they have general disbelief when it comes to fairness in this capitalistic world, and often exaggerate the disparities between income levels (Chambers, Swan, & Heesacker, 2015). On the other hand, conservatives believe that, regardless of income level, hard work will bring success.

Nonetheless, we cannot disregard the common tendency that wealth brings dominance. When there is dominance, there is oppression. Pease (2013) believed that oppression and privilege not only manifested in terms of accessibility to resources but also is embodied in a person’s character. It also enables them to have a bigger and better selection of resources, such as housing, which will likely be in better school districts to raise children (Killewald, 2013). The children will then have better education, job, and mate selection. Wealth is also passed down to many generations and is a mediator for inequality (Killewald, 2013), which empowers a person to assert dominance over others continually.

We can see examples of inequality through private colleges, which have a historically significant role in establishing the elite class and privileged status across generations. These elite universities are accompanied with great promise for a better-paying career and upward mobility. However, research shows that, even with the same level of intelligence as the wealthy, children from working-class parents may merely be unable to pay the tuition and thus not attend elite schools (Martin, 2012). Even if they do, many will not have the same level of support for tuition and other expenses as the wealthy. As a result, they are more likely to have a job to help pay for college expenses, which will take time away for campus activities and study time (Martin, 2012). Upon completion of the degree, student loans are carried through the young life of the working-class graduate. Education can have a lasting impact on a person’s lifetime. The types of school attended and the amount of debt that accumulated all could depend on wealth. Parental wealth, or wealth inherited from family members can be granted to their decendents without merit. For the working class, money has barred many talented individuals from entering a prestigious school, something that will continue to impact them down the road.

Similar to education, the justice system also has a long-lasting impact on people’s lives, based on income level. Magnus Lofstrom (2016), a professor of public policy, has found that the social costs created by these correctional facilities have a disproportionally more significant impact on poor communities. The inmate populations have been those who are minorities, low-income, or both, especially for the United States—a nation with the highest incarceration in the world (Lofstrom & Raphael, 2016). The US criminal justice system is also costly, whether regarding its operation or for the defendants. Furthermore, Loftsrome (2016) stated that the direct punishment and incarceration of the inmates could have an indirect, unintended punishment on their family. Fines and bail will impact not only the people involved in the justice system but also the members of their household. To explain, when the person involved with the justice system becomes unable to work, it will cause a drop in income for his or her household. Contrastingly, higher-income households have better access to lawyers, and better affordability to post bond. “The prevalence and magnitude of these hard-to-measure direct and indirect social costs have increased and in an unequal manner over the past four decades,” Loftsrome (2016) said. “This has disproportionately affected poor minority communities.”

Recent news has documented the gap in education and the justice system, with mainstream examples such as Brock Turner and Lori Loughlin. Their cases leave a mark on the nation that disparity is real, and it benefits the wealthy. It permanently left the impression that money can buy your way into elite college and out of proper criminal punishment. However, it is not logical to assume that disparity is as prolific as some may perceive. Not all people, particularly those who are economically vulnerable, are equally motivated to rationalize a perception from a larger, national data (Xu & Garand, 2010). Many people tend to build criticism from one or two sensational news articles, such as the previously mentioned cases

Analysis Plan

My hypothesis is that people with lower income have a higher tendency to believe that inequality is apparent and benefits the rich; contrastly, people with higher income will have a lower tendency. On the other hand, my null hypothesis is that the wealthy could also be just as aware of disparity as the poor. Many successful entrepreneurs started small and later became wealthy. They might be able to acknowledge the struggle and the challenges of people with low income through their “been there, done that” experience. The last hypothesis could be no correlation between people’s income level versus their perception of privilege. It is because this perception of privilege may be more evident and relatable based on other variables such as race or gender. I chose to chi-square for my calculation because I am testing two nominal variables. My goal is to see whether the perception regarding disparities is different among different income levels.

Data

The survey data collected in Table 1 supports my theory. The data shows that while the majority of people, regardless of the income level, agree that inequality exists or benefits the rich. The percentage of people who agree went down as the more income increases. There are over 75% of people who make less than $25,000 a year who agree there is inequality, while only 58% of the people with higher income concur with it. The chi-square value is significant (<.05); the p-value is .015, and thus we reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the specified income level.

[Insert Table Here]

Measures

The American dream is a notion that any individual can succeed with hard work and perseverance (Chambers, Swan, & Heesacker, 2015). Nevertheless, more and more people are starting to think that America is no longer the land of opportunities envisaged by its founders. Xu’s research (2010), published in the Social Science Quarterly, discovered that incomes have apparent growth at a faster rate for individuals at higher income percentiles in the United States; for example, the top 0.1 percent is accounted for a significant amount of the entire country’s wealth. Such a difference in income level has a direct effect on an individual’s perceptions of rising income inequality (Xu & Garand, 2010).

Although Americans differ in their perceptions of rising inequality, income inequality in the United States has been evident, as well as the disparity caused by it. Nonetheless, attitudes toward inequality are often more emotionally than logically charged. Chambers had stated that liberals, with greater pessimism about the general economy, exaggerate income disparities; Xu also suggested that “low-income Americans will be most sensitive to a higher level of income inequality” (Xu & Garand, 2010, p. 1227). Thus we can safely assume that if the perceptions do not refer to larger-scale data and studies, it is likely not the reality. On the other hand, we should not just discredit the perception entirely. “To what extent can we charge those who are oppressed who are not doing enough to challenge their oppression, while those who are privileged to acknowledge the role they play in the oppression?” (Pease, 2010, p. 5).

To conclude, collecting a survey on people’s perception is easy; the data from the survey in the table supported my hypothesis that people with higher income have a lower agreement with the existence of disparity. However, it is difficult to find a balance between perceptions and disparities, and many other variables can skew the data on perception. In addition to income, the race and political affiliation of a person all played a role in shaping perspectives. A future study could research the amount of impact each has on forming the opinion, which will help to rationalize the solution behind the emotionally-charged perception from the poor, or emotionally-detached perception from the wealthy.

References

Chambers, J., Swan, L., & Heesacker, M. (2015). Perceptions of US social mobility are divided (and distorted) along ideological lines. SAGE Journals, 26(4), 413–423. doi:10.1177/0956797614566657

Killewald, A. (2013). Return to being back, living in the red: A race gap in wealth that goes beyond social origins. SpringerLink, 50(4), 1177-1195. doi:10.1007/s13524-012-0190-0

Lofstrom, M. & Raphael, S. (2016). Crime, the criminal justice system, and socioeconomic

inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 103-126. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43783709

Martin, N. (2012). The privilege of ease: Social class and campus life at highly selective, private universities. SpringerLink, 53(4), 426-452.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9234-3

Pease, B. (2010). Undoing Privilege: Unearned Advantage in a Divided World. London, England: Zed Books.

Xu, P. & Garand, J. (2010). Economic context and Americans’ perceptions of income inequality. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1220-1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00729.x

Table 1.

Agreement on Inequality Based on Income Level

Does Inequality Exist or Benefits the Rich?			Respondents Income Level
			$25k ↓		$25k – $50k		$50k ↑	Total
Agree	Count		101		66		67	234
	% within income level		75.4%		64.7%		58.3%	66.7%
Disagree	Count		33		36		48	117
	% within income level		24.6%		35.3%		41.7%	33.3%
Total	Count		134		102		115	351
	% within income level		100%		100%		100%	100%
Chi-Square Test		Value		df		Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square		8.404		2		.015
Likelihood Ratio		8.519		2		.014
Linear-by-Linear Association		8.235		1		.004
N of Valid Cases		351

Note. From “gss08pfp-b” by M. Lizotte, 2019, Augusta University.

Abstract

This study will review the cause of gentrification and its positive and negative impact on urban development. In many developed cities in the US, the cost of home skyrocketed due to many reasons. One reason being the growth of high paying jobs from many conglomerate corporations. My approach will focus on the increase in property value and the displacement in major US cities. I will analyze the benefits of growth and development but also review the negative impact on social and income inequity. In this report, we will review the literature regarding the perspective on displacement due to gentrification in America. This paper is a conceptual analysis with the following purpose:

• Analyze the positive impact of revitalization and the negative impact gentrification in states with rapid urban development.
• Introduce and interpret “gentrification.”
• Explain the public administration’s role in dealing with the negative impact of gentrification.
• Conclude major findings in the literature and public administration overall.

 

Keywords: gentrification, displacement, urban development, revitalization, inequity in housing, social segregation, income gap

Urban development and revitalization bring benefits and advancement for many communities if done correctly. Retail development can revitalize corridors and service an attraction for further public and private development. The benefit of these developments also raises local and state tax revenues, with minimal expenditures (Chapple & Jacobus, 2018). Successful commercial development can make a low-income neighborhood more attractive and desirable for others, which will turn into a mixed-income neighborhood that introduces diversity. Furthermore, it can trigger an increase in property values, create jobs, and promote entrepreneurship.

Proponents of retail development programs cite a wide range of sometimes conflicting reasons as sometimes revitalization leads to the displacement of lower-income households. This happens most commonly in cities rather than the suburbs as most of the homes are rented, not owned. New middle and upper-income residents are able to afford a higher rent; landlords who see the opportunity, typically driving out lower-income renters. Segregation between home-renters and home-owners increased in most metropolitan areas (Owens, 2019).

Gentrification has many negative connotations with it; as a metaphor, the word serves as a synonym that comes with a sense of danger and allusion that undermines living security (Redfern, 2003). Social class plays a major role in gentrification; gentrifiers, those who come into an already inhabited place by turning it into a place of their own. Scholars have devoted volumes to analyzing neighborhood decline, subsequent revitalization, and gentrification as a result of government, market, and individual interventions

Incumbent upgrading for commercialization and urban development catalyzes existing residents to make improvements. They may stay and reap the benefits of neighborhood revitalization, whereas, in gentrification, they can be displaced as the social and economic environment shifts (Zuk, Bierbaum, Chapple, Gorska, & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2018). Income inequality has been increasing in the United States in recent decades. In the early 2000s, the income, after adjusted for inflation, of the bottom 20% Americans increased only by 12%, while that of the top 20% Americans grew by about 67% (Watson, 2007). As socioeconomic segregation increases, it contributes to the increase in advantages of the dominant group and disadvantages of the oppressed (Quillian & Lagrange, 2016).

Chiara Valli’s qualitative research study (2015) documents the displacement induced by gentrification. She believes exploring the experience of low-income and long-time resident of a gentrifying neighborhood, we can truly understand what displacement really is and the economic and social inequalities behind it. A result of gentrification is displacement. The word displacement, in addition to the act of losing space, comes with an emphasis from those who are losing a sense of security and options; it also highlights their anxiety (Redfern, 2003).

“When I say you can SEE the gentrification, I mean you can see it in the prices, the clothing people wear, the things people talk about,” one of the interviewees from Valli’s research (2015) said.

“I’m losing my home because I don’t make enough to live here, because there are people who have more money than me,” said another interviewee. “I don’t mean anything; my likes and what I think don’t have a place at the table anymore.”

There are over 50 metropolitan areas with a population of more than 1 million in the United States (Quilliam & Lagrange, 2016). Overall, there is substantially large statistical support of income segregation in American cities. Low-income neighborhoods are disproportionately located in cities, while, on average, suburbs are more affluent. Many gentrification studies have been most commonly conducted in New York, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco (Chapple & Jacobus, 2018). Based on the Census data, the evidence of the extent of housing segregation can be seen by type and by cost at multiple geographic scales in large metropolitan areas in the United States. An article in GeoJournal has found a positive correlation between segregation and morality for the U.S. metropolitan area, and that income segregation could not be considered in isolation from income inequality; it is in fact, income inequality provides the propensity for segregation (Ross, Nobrega, & Dunn, 2001).

California’s housing market is so large that it now accounts for a third of the nation’s housing market value. However, not all existing residents can keep up with the market increase. In San Mateo County, tenants report abuse and harassment from landlords prior to being evicted and priced out by market forces. Approximately a third of the displaced households reported homelessness or marginal housing in neighborhoods with fewer job opportunities and longer commute in the next two years (Marcus & Zuk, 2017). Orange county itself accounts for over 5,000 homeless people.

In 1981, National Institute of Advanced Studies published a survey on current and former residents at a rapidly revitalized neighborhood in San Francisco; researchers find that “from 1975 to 1979, the displaced population was more likely to be African American, less educated, poor, renters, elderly or with disability, and living alone in comparison to in-movers and residents who stay.”

Ann Owen, associate professor of Sociology, finds that similar situations can be seen in New York, the Empire State, as well. New York metropolitan areas have among the highest levels of housing segregation by type, three to five times higher than in the least segregated metropolitan areas, At the border of Queens lies a neighborhood called Bushwick, where one third of the population lives below poverty level with an overwhelming percentage of minorities and only 17% whites (Valli, 2016). This is due to the increase in housing prices at the end of the 1990s, and the nearby neighborhoods went through gentrification, where people with higher income took over and low-income residents were displaced to Bushwick.

Nevertheless, gentrification is happening again in New York, according to Valli (2015). In the early 2000s and more noticeability around 2016, the gentrification started with the opening of businesses and restaurants attracted people who seek in the latest trends. To accommodate them, warehouses were converted into apartments and new condos, even luxury ones, were built (Valli, 2016). To put it in perspective, a studio in Bushwick was $1,700 in 2013 and has increased to $2,300 in 2014. Even the veteran real estate agents deemed the price increase as abnormal. Valli identifies the displacements from the trend in the housing market, which creates pressures on long-time residents.

Policymakers in economically distressed metropolitan areas should be concerned about the effects of over revitalization and segregation due to income equality, including but not limited to the decline of older cities and perpetuation of poverty. Policies that reduce income inequality can help reduce overbuilding and income segregation in distressed areas (Watson, 2007). Moreover, growing disparities between the rich and the poor skew political influences, where the rich and the dominant group can be heard while voice for the public support and advocacy for low and moderate-income people diminishes. This results in inadequate and skewed investment in human capital, and declining affordability of housing for poor and middle-income households.

Researchers have examined “how zoning laws contribute to income segregation. Income segregation is lower in areas with higher population density and high-density development patterns, suggesting that zoning laws that facilitate these patterns reduce segregation” (Owens, 2019). In addition, the office of policy and development research from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has listed a few ways in their January 2017 report. Table 1 is divided into four sections that give context to these solutions: Table 1

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

Key Strategies	Description of Policy Tools
Preserve existing affordable housing	Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), approved by Congress in 2013, could help the private market invest in decent, safe, and affordable housing. The goal is to give public housing agencies a tool to preserve and improve public housing properties by moving units from the public housing program to a more stable funding platform, such as long-term project-based Section 8 contracts like project-based vouchers or project-based rental assistance.
Encourage greater housing development and affordable housing	Issues of affordability are widespread and reach beyond the “hottest” coastal markets and gentrifying neighborhoods. Federal and local policies that incentivize greater development of housing can ease pressures on overall housing affordability.
Engage existing community residents	As neighborhood change can often take place without regard for the concerns and requests of existing residents, recognizing that housing affordability and residential displacement are not the only concerns and seeking the active participation of residents could capture the buy-in of residents and ensure that other coping strategies are successful.
Take a broader look and using regional, rather than localized, strategies	Effective tools will focus on regional coordination, looking above the neighborhood level and beyond housing. The federal government could be particularly helpful in encouraging regional cooperation and coordinating with multiple agencies on issues such as transportation and education.

Note. From “Insights into Housing & Community Development Policy” (pp. 1-2). by the Office of Policy Development and Research. Copyright 2017 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

To summarize, revitalizing a neighborhood can bring an increase in market value and promote businesses, but excessively, it can lead to gentrification. Although the displacement discussion in the United States began with the role of the public sector and now has returned to the same focus as most studies agree that gentrification at a minimum leads to exclusionary displacement (Zuk et. al., 2018). Table 2 contains suggested questions that will better address the needs of policymakers, community activists for researchers. It is important to improve the body of research related to public investments, gentrification, and displacement. In some cases, this will need both new data sets and scientific methods, such as Owen’s study; whereas in other cases, it will involve more qualitative methods and measures, such as Valli’s study.

Table 2.

Future Research Questions for the Role of Public Investment on Gentrification and Displacement

1.	How do different types of public investments influence not only neighborhood change but also residential and commercial displacement? a.     Does the type or quantity of investment matter? b.     What are the displacement impacts of different forms of public investment and action, not only fixed-rail transit but also streetscape improvements and rezoning, among others? c.     How does timing matter from early planning phases to investment and implementation? d.     What is the impact of market-rate versus subsidized housing production at the neighborhood and regional scale?
2.	How do public investments impact commercial change, specifically related to small businesses, employment patterns, affordability of goods and services, and change in clientele? How does this relate to residential change?
3.	What are the social, economic, and health impacts of gentrification and residential displacement?
4.	What can planners and policymakers do to mitigate residential displacement? Which types of anti-displacement strategies are most effective?

Note. From “Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role of Public Investment” (p. 44), by M. Zuk et. al. Copyright 2017 by the Journal of Planning Literature.

Until the methodological challenges and these additional research questions are addressed, these researches on gentrification and displacement will prompt no actions from policymakers and only have limited application in proper revitalization and stabilization of neighborhoods to prevent gentrification. Although perhaps not a silver bullet, research addressing those questions can shed light on reducing housing segregation and developing adequate housing policy.

References

Chapple, K., & Jacobus, R. (2008). Retail Trade as a Route to Neighborhood Revitalization. In M. Turner, H. Wial, & Wolman, H. (Eds.), Urban and Regional Policy and Its Effects. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Marcus, J. & Zuk, M. (2017). Displacement in San Mateo County, California: Consequences for Housing, Neighborhoods, Quality of Life, and Health. Institute of Government Studies: Research Briefs. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/

National Institute for Advanced Studies. (1981). Market Generated Displacement: A Single City Case Study. Washington, DC: Arthur.

Owens, A. (2019). Building Inequality: Housing Segregation and Income Segregation. Society for Sociological Science, 6, 497-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.15195/v6.a19

Quillian, L. & Lagrange, H. (2016). Socioeconomic Segregation in Large Cities in France and the United States. Springer Nature B.V., 53(4), 1051-1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0491-9

Redfern, P. A. (2003). What Makes Gentrification ‘Gentrification’? Urban Studies, 40(12), 2351–2366. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000136101

Ross, N., Nobrega, K., & Dunn, J. (2001). Income segregation, income inequality and mortality in North American metropolitan areas. GeoJournal, 53 (2), 117-124. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41147593

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2017). Insights into housing and community development policy. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Insights-Ensuring-Equitable-Growth.pdf

Valli, C. (2015). A sense of displacement: Long-time residents’ feelings of displacement in gentrifying Bushwick, New York. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), 1191-1208. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12340

Watson, T. (2007). New housing, income inequality, and distressed metropolitan areas. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/new-housing-income-inequality-and-distressed-metropolitan-areas/

Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2018). Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role of Public Investment. Journal of Planning Literature, 33(1), 31-44. doi:10.1177/0885412217716439