PF Mar 2019 - Market Rate Housing - Introduction

Resolved: The United States should promote the development of market rate housing in urban neighborhoods.

Introduction

In many areas of the United States there is a lack of affordable housing. This is especially true since the economic crash of 2008, when home foreclosures increased dramatically, loans for new homes became increasingly difficult to obtain, and many builders significantly curtailed construction of new homes. In recent years, new housing starts have increased, and the market has loosened; a signal the economy has improved and people are feeling more confident about taking on long term loans. But, not all areas are experiencing such a resurgence of growth in the housing market. The crash of 2008, had significant impact on many urban neighborhoods which were already in decline.

McNeil 2018:

We’ve all seen the photos of Detroit when it was at its lowest point after the 2008 recession: street after street of vacant lots and abandoned homes—a city in visible decline. It might have been the poster child for urban blight, but those problems are more common than one would think in poor neighborhoods in many medium-sized cities around the country.

Declining neighborhoods, often see increases in crime, vandalism, drug abuse, squatting (people living in abandoned buildings),  poor health, etc. Properties which decline in value begin to affect the attractiveness and value of surrounding areas and so local governments seek solutions to stop and reverse the decline of urban neighborhoods.

McNeil 2018:

The usual answer for struggling cities is to bring in new jobs, grow the tax base, and gentrify poorer neighborhoods. The problem with that approach is that the poor people in those neighborhoods are inevitably pushed out, move somewhere else, and the cycle begins anew, said Hollander, A96, an associate professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning.

The concept of gentrification is a key element of this debate. Merriam Webster's definition for gentrification describes the issue perfectly as, "the process of repairing and rebuilding homes and businesses in a deteriorating area (such as an urban neighborhood) accompanied by an influx of middle-class or affluent people and that often results in the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents".

Projects which revitalize inner city neighborhoods, by attracting middle or upper income residents, tend to raise property values, which effectively, prices the lower-income residents out of the neighborhood, who are now displaced into other, lower-income neighborhoods.

Definitions

Before continuing the discussion and advancing to the Pro and Con positions of this debate, let's define the key terms of the resolution. 

United States

I think it unnecessary to provide an authoritative definition of the United States. Nevertheless, it is clear the United States is the subject (the main actor) of the resolution.

promote

Merriam Webster offers two relevant definitions, "to advance in station, rank, or honor" and "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of"

development

Merriam Webster: "the act, process, or result of developing" i.e. "to make visible or manifest", "to work out the possibilities of", "to create or produce especially by deliberate effort over time"

market rate housing

For this definition, I have chosen the source, Strong Towns, Housing Terms Defined (2018): 

"Market rate housing is housing that is available on the private market, not subsidized or limited to any specific income level."

urban neighborhoods

The following definition is found at Bekins Moving Solutions: 

"An urban neighborhood is usually found in the downtown core of a city. These neighborhoods are not exclusive to any particular state but will always be found in the heart of a major metro area. In larger cities, the majority of homes may consist of apartment buildings, condos, and townhouses."

Intent of the Resolution

By specifying, the "United States" we can immediately limit the scope of the discussions to the context of the United States. While it is acceptable for debaters to cite examples from other nations, it can be problematic because the opponents will likely claim the examples may not be applicable due to the fact the economy, demographics, tax structures, and regulations in the United States are not comparable to other nations. So while the use of the term "United States" defines a limited context, it is not so clear whether the United States as primary actor means the United States federal government or more generally, refers to its people or interests. If the intent was to specify actions to be taken by the USFG to promote market-rate housing, it would be more like a policy debate. I don't think it is necessary to assume we should debate specific policies of the USFG. Instead I prefer the approach the resolution intends the debate to center around the question of whether to promotion (by whoever has the ability to do the promotion) of market rate housing is viable course of action for urban neighborhoods within the United States.

Nothing in the wording of the resolution, specifies harms, yet one may assume there are advantages to voting Pro. Thus it will be the burden of the Pro to isolate the rationale for promoting market-rate housing. Voting Pro either avoids certain disadvantages or it results in direct advantages which are unique to market-rate housing. This is a key point, because the Con can still address all of Pro's major premises by arguing the disadvantages can be avoided or the advantages gained by taking other courses of action. Con may also claim its own set of unique of advantages.

Be careful about the terminology that will undoubtedly be used in this debate. Make sure you are clear about what is "affordable housing". Keep in mind the differences between  "market-rate housing" and other forms of rate-regulated housing and brush up on your knowledge of supply and demand and basic economic concepts surrounding free-market economies. This topic can potentially cover a broad spectrum of debates including economics, sociology, health-care, morality and much more.

Sources:

McNeil, T (2018), Turning Around Urban Decline, Tufts Now, June 18, 2018. https://now.tufts.edu/articles/turning-around-urban-decline