打印

作者

Rolf Pendall

来源

URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW,Vol.57,Issue1,P.298–311

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

1University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

摘要

The other two respondents have carefully articulated many objections to David Imbroscio’s essay, responding to its arguments on its own terms. Rather than another point-by-point response, I offer a counternarrative that looks toward the future. In my view, ending exclusionary zoning (EZ) is an important element in a campaign to avoid some of the suffering low-income people in the United States will experience as the global climate emergency becomes increasingly acute, the national population ages, and the entrenched power of right-wing libertarians sustains inequality. Parochial actions like EZ will further complicate responses to these challenges. My response argues that for these reasons, Imbroscio’s essay is neither ethical nor logical.