Iglesias, Tim 7/1/2014 For Educational Use Only OUR PLURALIST HOUSING ETHICS AND THE..., 42 Wake Forest L.... © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 42 Wake Forest L. Rev. 511 Wake Forest Law Review Summer 2007 A Place to Call Home? Affordable Housing Issues in America Article OUR PLURALIST HOUSING ETHICS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR AFFORDABILITY Tim Iglesias a1 Copyright (c) 2007 Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc.; Tim Iglesias Building on recent scholarship, this Article explores the five “housing ethics” that have historically shaped U.S. housing law and policy: (1) housing as an economic good, (2) housing as home, (3) housing as a human right, (4) housing as providing social order, and (5) housing as one land use in a functional system. The “housing ethic” framework brings all of America’s housing law and policy under one conceptual roof. The Article argues that each of these housing ethics is deeply embedded in American housing policy and law, and that none has ever achieved a complete hegemony, i.e., that coexistence and pluralism among the housing ethics is the norm. The Article examines the challenges and opportunities that our housing ethic pluralism presents to the affordable housing movement. It identifies the “housing as one land use in a functional system” ethic as the single most promising ethic to advance affordability. I. Introduction Americans love their homes and the idea of “home.” 1 They appear to engage in near worship, referring to the “sanctity” of the home 2 and expending enormous amounts of time and money even on *512 modest houses. 3 They appreciate how important homes are to personal development as well as family and community life. 4 When natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina leave people tragically homeless, many respond generously. 5 Congress’s statement in 1949 declaring “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family” as a national goal is the most well-known legislative expression of this valuing of “home.” 6 President George W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural address proclaimed a vision of a new “ownership society” premised on his belief in the liberty of each family to own their own homes. 7 The virtues of “home” are extolled as good and necessary for all, *513 a building block, a foundation for life. However, the enthusiasm suddenly dries up when the topic is “homes” (housing) for low-income people or people of color. How do we reconcile the apparent contradictions between America’s love affair with home and its tolerance for massive and growing homelessness (both visible and hidden), the pervasive Not-In-My-Back-Yard (“NIMBY”) phenomenon, and--perhaps the most important challenge to housing--the well-documented and widening crisis in housing affordability? 8 Significant recent legal scholarship focuses on “home.” 9 These writings engage in a social constructive interpretation of American housing law and policy. The scholars agree that housing is a “unique” type of property with a special character in our law and *514 policy, compared to a wide range of other forms of property. 10 This scholarship might seem likely to boost the affordability movement because such valuing of home might lead to laws and policies making decent and affordable homes available for all. 11 This Article argues that such hopes would be in vain. Americans’ love of “home” is narrowly focused. The “American Dream” is not the only driving force in housing law and policy. 12 Despite the common view of one’s home as one’s castle, the