English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The pandemic brought with it unprecedented job loss and financial insecurity, further exacerbating the housing affordability and eviction crisis. As moratoriums end and local governments find ways to deal with different elements of the housing crisis in lieu of federal intervention, some are proposing various forms of a “right to housing.” In this article, we consider one policy proposed in Sacramento, California in an attempt to highlight the complicated nature of the right (or in this case, bundle of rights). To this end, we use the Legal-Economic Performance framework to consider the potential performance implications of the proposed institutional change. We find that Sacramento’s proposal, while intended to address some aspects of the homelessness crisis in the city, does not create a right to housing as traditionally described. Rather, it creates a complicated shifting of legal relations that result in only the most limited form of a right to temporary shelter as defined by the city being granted to homeless individuals. More notably, the ordinance will create a duty on homeless individuals to move while exposing them to the city’s chosen methods of enforcement.

Housing as a Human Right: A Proposed Alternative Institutional Structure in Sacramento