Ohio forged, globally minded
The Ohio State University
osu-32px-horiz-rev
We are Ohio State, a dynamic community where opportunity thrives. Through our far-reaching network of diverse resources and perspectives, we foster the incisive thinking, spirit of collaboration, and depth of character you need to transform yourself and your world.  
Help | BuckeyeLink | Map | Find People | Webmail
open close

Remedial Phase Expert Rebuttal Report In Thompson v. HUD

Remedial Phase Expert Rebuttal Report In Thompson v. HUD
2006Legal AnalysisOpportunity Communities

Download or View The Full Report

I emphasize six guiding principles in the design of a remedy for HUD’s fair housing violation. First, the remedy must be sensitive to opportunity and to the importance of location in determining access to opportunity. Second, the remedy must be metropolitan–wide to be successful. Third, a race conscious approach is necessary to ensure an effective remedy in light of HUD’s housing duties and the realities of the housing market. Fourth, the remedy should not force the dispersal of subsidized housing residents, but should be a structured choice model in which residents voluntarily participate in a program that creates housing opportunities specifically in integrated, high opportunity communities. Fifth, while process based remedies are important, the remedy must also be goal driven and adaptive to the dynamic nature of the housing market. Finally, the remedy must require HUD to utilize the wide variety of tools available, including vouchers and new housing production, to ensure housing opportunities in high opportunity communities.

This report rebuts assertions made by HUD expert remedial reports by Clark, Olsen, Schuck and Shroder. These reports make flawed and incorrect arguments to dispute the need for an opportunity based desegregative housing mobility program in the Baltimore region. HUD expert rebuttal reports do not convincingly refute the fundamental principles behind my proposed remedy. HUD expert arguments are also internally contradictory and selectively present evidence to support their claims. I have identified six primary flaws in the collective arguments presented by Clark, Olsen and Shroder.