ABSTRACT

Since 2003, when Hartman and Robinson identified eviction as “the hidden housing problem,” a growing body of research has provided detailed, empirical analyses of the eviction process in specific locations. However, there has been little effort to systematically compare the legal regimes and institutional contexts governing eviction proceedings. Drawing on our research in four cities—Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Washington, DC—we consider how the legal regimes of landlord–tenant courts shape the eviction process for tenants and landlords. Specifically, we draw on fieldwork and administrative records from these four cities to identify how procedural and legal contexts differ by place, and the ways that these processes shape both eviction’s institutional life and its underlying social meanings. Although the problem of eviction is no longer hidden in the housing literature, the explosion of eviction research has introduced a comparative analysis problem.

摘要

自 2003 年哈特曼和罗宾逊将驱逐确定为“隐藏的住房问题”以来，越来越多的研究对特定地点的驱逐过程提供了详细的实证分析。然而，几乎没有努力系统地比较管辖驱逐程序的法律制度和制度背景。借鉴我们在四个城市的研究——马里兰州巴尔的摩；德克萨斯州达拉斯；加利福尼亚州洛杉矶；和华盛顿特区——我们考虑了房东-房客法庭的法律制度如何影响房客和房东的驱逐程序。具体而言，我们利用来自这四个城市的实地调查和行政记录来确定程序和法律背景如何因地而异，以及这些过程如何塑造驱逐的制度生活及其潜在的社会意义。