I have a post up at Forbes that lays out and refines a bit my concerns about the term, “Displacement.”

Unless and until there is a quantitative definition and measurement of displacement we ought to stop using the term. Compassion? Absolutely. Many people in our local economy are suffering. In fact, tonight, thousands of people within close distance to where I am writing this will sleep in cars, tents, or in doorways. The stubborn resistance to the simple fact of supply and demand and the argument that building new housing displaces people is slowing production by promoting policies that further restrict new housing. That is harmful to poor people. What is also harmful is the blithe disregard by people who ought to know better that taking the term seriously in the name of “acknowledging the problem” is certainly not adding to the discussion or making life better for anyone.

“Displacement” has been a hot topic lately, even inspiring an amendment to the Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) proposal to charge more fees for new housing in areas “at-risk” of displacement, even though there really isn’t any definition or measurement of it retrospectively. Like it or not, the term is going to continue to influence the housing discussion in the months ahead even though nobody really knows what it means or how to measure it.