Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorJustin Steil.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDunfey, Carey Luciaen_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.coverage.spatialn-us-maen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-15T15:31:56Z
dc.date.available2017-09-15T15:31:56Z
dc.date.copyright2017en_US
dc.date.issued2017en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/111387
dc.descriptionThesis: M.C.P., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 2017.en_US
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of thesis.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (pages 82-90).en_US
dc.description.abstractThe ability to access affordable, stable, and good quality housing has become an increasing concern for policymakers, community advocates, and activists in growing urban metros across the United States. In Boston, population growth and rising housing costs have spurred new development of luxury housing and renovation of existing residential buildings, putting pressure on existing neighborhood tenants and homeowners. As a response to these phenomena, perceived as contributing to a displacement and eviction crisis in Boston, organizations within the Right to the City Alliance proposed legislation that they felt would "slow down" the processes leading to eviction of tenants in larger buildings and former homeowners in their foreclosed properties. The Jim Brooks Community Stabilization Act, formerly the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, if implemented, would ensure residents are notified of their rights in eviction proceedings and allow them to be evicted only for certain "just causes." Since 2014, advocates have been working to get this legislation drafted and passed in the Boston City Council. This research seeks to understand why and how advocates proposed this act and what barriers it faces in implementation. I argue that despite gaining support from the Mayor's Office and being an intentionally mild bill, opposition from large and small property owners and the real estate industry has shaped the conversation around the act, leading to both confusion and resistance to its passing. In this case study, I discuss the difficulties of drafting and passing progressive housing policy in increasingly unaffordable urban areas and the need for a broader conversation about the right to housing for residents.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Carey Lucia Dunfey.en_US
dc.format.extent91, 20 unnumbered pagesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsMIT theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed, downloaded, or printed from this source but further reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectUrban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.titleWe shall not be moved : advocacy and policy in a rapidly changing Bostonen_US
dc.title.alternativeAdvocacy and policy in a rapidly changing Bostonen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeM.C.P.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning
dc.identifier.oclc1003291719en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record