Paper Example on the 1934 Housing Act: FDR's New Deal to Improve Home Ownership

Introduction

The housing act was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. The main aim of the housing act was to improve the housing conditions, make mortgages and housing more affordable and accessible, and more importantly, to mitigate the rate of foreclosure that occurred during the Great Depression. The law was incorporated as part of the new deal. This housing act has made it possible for the establishment of Federal Saving and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). These associations, in return, has made it easier for low-income families to buy homes. This paper will entail an annotated bibliography on the housing act.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Anderson, J. C. (2008, Aug 18). A detailed look at the housing act.

The book shows that, in 2008, President Bush contracted the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, intending to help homeowners who are struggling, lending institutions, and future homebuyers. The official actor in the housing act policy was the legislature, including the President. On the other hand, the unofficial actors in the policy included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both firms are sponsored by the government, which gave them the advantage of being offered a far-reaching provision through financial assistance. The housing acts gave the US Treasury ability to offer Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae an unlimited line of credit. The policy decision implemented had a hugely significant effect on the issuance of reverse mortgages. Through this, homeowners who are 62 and above are given a chance to liquidate their home equity over some time through deeding the house to the bank upon their death.

Belec, J. (2015). Underwriting suburbanization: the National Housing Act and the Canadian city. The Canadian geographer, 341.

Based on the article, the main aim of the housing act was to design and support the current infrastructure in mortgage loaning. The main official actor in this policy-making was the federal state of Canada and the United States. The unofficial actor included the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The policy was aimed to help in the post-war housing market. The policy was steadfast via a market tactic that supported institutional mortgage loaning. The policy decision was implemented by promoting the demand for houses through a modernized mortgage instrument. To achieve this policy decision, long term amortization was used as a policy tool. This tool helped in increasing the demand and, at the same time, reducing the monthly cost of ownership.

Collins, M. G. (2010). OPENING DOORS TO FAIR HOUSING: ENFORCING THE AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER PROVISION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT THROUGH 42 USC. 1983. Columbia law review, 2135-2184.

This housing act was implemented in 1983, and its primary purpose was to ensure that there is nondiscrimination and ensure that there are residential integration and the same access to housing welfares. The official actors in the making of the policy based on the article were the Congress, which sought to get rid of the discrimination walls that enclosed minority groups. The unofficial actor in the policy was the Housing and Urban Development. To implement the policy decision, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development was required to manage activities and programs related to urban and housing development. The tools that pushed the policy decision were two events which, as a result, impelled Congress to reconsider the housing act. The main event was the reports that were published by the congressional committee that was investigating riots due to the housing issue.

FAIR HOUSING ACT - SEGREGATIVE-EFFECT CLAIMS - the FIFTH CIRCUIT DISMISSES SEGREGATIVE-EFFECT CLAIMS AGAINST PRIVATE ACTORS. (Case note). (2020). Harvard law review, 1476.

The purpose of this housing act in this situation is to help the plaintiffs to bring suits for explicit discrimination and more so for facially fair policies that have discriminatory effects. The official actors of the housing act in this scenario was the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development regulation. The policy was implemented through the segregate effect that encompasses segregating housing patterns in the area. On the other hand, the unofficial actors of the policy, as depicted in the article were the Inclusive Communities Project Inc. (ICP) one of the tools that led to the policy decision is the suits of an alleged violation of the housing act which caused a racially discriminatory effect. The ICP gave a claim that the policy was resulting in disproportionate harm to black households.

Fair Housing Act - disparate impact and racial equality. (2015). Harvard law review, 321.

In this article, the public problem being presented is the incongruent effect and racial equality. In the past decade, the Supreme Court has often given restrictions on the capability of the public actors to view race as soon as they are taking measures of repairing the racial disparities in the community. The official actors of this policy in terms of racial equality is the Supreme Court. To implement the policy, the court claimed that under the housing act, disparate impact issues are recognizable. Moreover, the unofficial actors were the federal government, which provided the tax-credits via the American states to help in the housing development in the low-income areas.

Hutt, M. (2018). This House is Not Your Home: Litigating Landlord Rejections of Housing Choice Vouchers Under the Fair Housing Act. Journal of Law and Social Problems, 391-429.

The public problem being solved by the housing act presented in this article is the discrimination that the low-income household goes through. In addition, the problem affects them since they are considered as being disproportionally people of color and individuals having disabilities. As a result of being seen in such a manner, they are often denied households by the landlords. The official actors in the policy-making of the human activities are the judiciary in terms of the Supreme Court. The unofficial actors involved are the Federal Housing Choice Voucher in order to protect the members attending their programs from being discriminated against. The tool that was used in implementing the decision is the state and local laws that banned landlords considering the source of income of a tenant when renting houses.

Julian, E. (2019). THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AT FIFTY: TIME FOR A CHANGE. Cardozo law review, 1133.

This article addresses the change that is required in the housing act. The author goes to point out that the housing act ensures that there is fair housing all through the United States but within constitutional limitations. Based on the article, the official actor was the legislature, while the unofficial actor was the House of Urban Development (HUD). To implement the housing act, two main ways were used. The first primary tool was through prohibiting house discrimination in both the private and public housing transactions. The other tool involved giving the secretary of HUD the statutory responsibility and authority for overseeing the housing act encompassing the responsibility to enforce nondiscrimination provisions associated with both private and public housing discrimination.

Massey, D. (2015). The Legacy of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Sociological Forum (Randolph, N.J.), 571-588.

Based on this article, the primary public problem that required a housing act solution was the racial discrimination that was witnessed in the rental or sale of housing. During this time, the level of segregation of black residents was extremely high. As a result, Congress became the official actors in making the policy. The policy tools that were used in the policy decision in measuring segregation included isolation index and index of dissimilarity. These tools were used to measure how whites and blacks were distributed in terms of neighborhoods. To implement the policy decision, an open community program was introduced, which tied the financial assistance of the Housing of Urban Development to the community in a bid to ensure affordable housing to everyone and, as a result promoting the desegregation by class and race.

Prakash, S. (2013). Racial dimensions of property value protection under the Fair Housing Act. California law review, 1437.

The public problem presented in this article is persistent in race-based residential segregation. The article points out that the causal factor of an increase in discrimination is a lack of universal access to legal protection for the property's value relished by the white homeowners and the minority. Congress was the official actor of the policy to ensure that there is a balanced and genuinely integrated living pattern. The unofficial actors were the politicians, such as the senators in America. The policy decision was implemented through various strategies that would remove any obstacle to housing opportunity that was caused by both private and public sectors.

Wong, K. (2009). Narrowing the definition of "dwelling" under the Fair Housing Act. UCLA law review.

In this article, the primary problem the housing act addresses is extending the definition of dwelling in the policy. The article argues that the coverage of the word does not define sleeping facilities such as tent cities or homeless shelters. In this scenario, the official actors are the court, which determines if a scenario is under dwelling requirement in the housing act by considering the length of stay. This policy decision is implemented through the court since Congress, when passing the law, did not clearly indicate if institutions such as homeless shelters or substance abuse facilities are considered as a dwelling.