Public Housing: Some Musings

[Teallaura]

Okay, this is not a thesis or an argument - it's just something I've been mulling over for a while now.

It seems to me that as a general rule (yes, I do know there are exceptions) home ownership is more financially beneficial overall than renting, especially in the long term. So why is it that we rent out public housing (granted at affordable prices) rather than selling them to the qualified recipient? Why not let rental count toward ownership (at a very small interest rate)?

Instead of building big complexes which end up rat traps, why not spread them out selling the units (yeah, I know that probably won't work in NYC - but in the vast majority of areas complexes are unnecessary as other space is available) to the renters? People take care of their own property better than rental property and there are a variety of benefits of home ownership to the renter - wouldn't selling them affordable housing make more sense as a general rule?

:cs:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Okay, this is not a thesis or an argument - it's just something I've been mulling over for a while now.

It seems to me that as a general rule (yes, I do know there are exceptions) home ownership is more financially beneficial overall than renting, especially in the long term. So why is it that we rent out public housing (granted at affordable prices) rather than selling them to the qualified recipient? Why not let rental count toward ownership (at a very small interest rate)?

Instead of building big complexes which end up rat traps, why not spread them out selling the units (yeah, I know that probably won't work in NYC - but in the vast majority of areas complexes are unnecessary as other space is available) to the renters? People take care of their own property better than rental property and there are a variety of benefits of home ownership to the renter - wouldn't selling them affordable housing make more sense as a general rule?

:cs:

I think you pretty much know my feelings towards government housing. (By "public" you mean "government," I'm assuming? If not I apologize.)

But, regardless of that, psychologically I think you are correct. Ownership of something really has an effect on the way people look at their lives. My house. My place to live. My hard work. As opposed to my handout...

That said, Habitat for Humanity (www.habitat.org) does pretty much as you suggested. All the info is right there on their site. I thought this from their FAQ was informative:Myth: Habitat for Humanity gives houses away to poor people.

Fact: Habitat for Humanity International offers a homeownership opportunity to families unable to obtain conventional house financing—generally, those whose income is 30 to 50 percent of the area's median income. In most cases, prospective Habitat homeowner families make a $500 down payment and contribute 300 to 500 hours of "sweat equity" on the construction of their home or someone else's home. Because Habitat houses are built using donations of land, material and labor, mortgage payments are kept affordable.

[Teallaura]

Thanks, I meant to get back to this earlier.

Yes, I meant government housing. I'm aware of Habitat (done a little volunteer work for them). I'd love to see private sector and charities take over the job, but at present that's unrealistic.

My main thought was that rental continues a cycle of dependence instead of 'getting people back on their feet' as intended. It seems to me that as units have to be replaced we can: a) shift some of the burden to the private sector by creating incentives and b) in the meantime, build housing for purchase instead of rental.

[themuzicman]

1) MOst people in public housing aren't qualified to get a loan.

2) Most people in public housing aren't prepared to own a home.

3) Giving away houses for cheap just further removes the dignity of that homeowner.


I think what we're finding in regards to welfare is that give-away programs don't work, because they ultimately change the perception of the recipient in regards to the world, and they begin to think they don't have to work to earn anything. No, that's not universally true, but more true for long term recipieitns.

The reason that habitat houses are successful is that the homeowner must put their own work into the home, thus earning their ownership, rather than having it given to them.

Michael

[Pilgrim]

I think you have a good point there Michael. The main issue is that people in such renting postions can not get the loan to buy a house and even if they could qualify for a loan, they could not affort the down payment. So there you have it. They have to keep renting.

You're right too Teal. Ownership changes something. I live in a townhouse community and 14 percent of residents are renters. Guess what? 98% of infractions and complaints and 99% of police response is to that 14%.

As a result, our condo association has formally voted to no longer allow renters.

It makes me wonder about the connection between poverty and crime and other social issues.

[themuzicman]

The real question is whether ownership changes things, or the work necessary to gain ownership is what makes the change.

I can tell you as a parent who provides use of a car to his teenagers that they treat the car that they purchase from their own money much differently than the one they get to use that Dad bought.

Michael

[Pilgrim]

The real question is whether ownership changes things, or the work necessary to gain ownership is what makes the change.

I can tell you as a parent who provides use of a car to his teenagers that they treat the car that they purchase from their own money much differently than the one they get to use that Dad bought.

Michael
bingo

[Teallaura]

Um, Muz - where exactly is 'putting something into it' excluded? It's not like I came up with a full blown plan here (something I noted in my OP).

As for them not qualifying for a loan, most don't qualify as renters either. They could never afford rental in the private market and many would be turned down on the basis of references anyway. But if you can pay rent you can obviously make a payment of some kind.

Spending a lifetime paying rent is not going to get you anywhere. If we're gonna give them the money to do that with, doesn't it make more sense to have them working toward ownership than rental?

[Pilgrim]

Um, Muz - where exactly is 'putting something into it' excluded? It's not like I came up with a full blown plan here (something I noted in my OP).

As for them not qualifying for a loan, most don't qualify as renters either. They could never afford rental in the private market and many would be turned down on the basis of references anyway. But if you can pay rent you can obviously make a payment of some kind.

Spending a lifetime paying rent is not going to get you anywhere. If we're gonna give them the money to do that with, doesn't it make more sense to have them working toward ownership than rental?
The problem is not with making a payment. The problem is being able to afford the initial down payment on a mortgage. Most folks at that income level don't have 10 grand lying around for such a thing.

[NeilUnreal]

There have been a number of attempts to address this issue by people involved in city planning and architecture, because the “big box” approach to providing lower-income housing has obviously failed. Two of the most important points to come out of these studies are:

1) People don’t just need homes, they need communities. There are many vibrant communities in underdeveloped countries where the people have very little and the houses are very modest. The differences seem to be mainly:

1a) A living community is not uniform. It contains structures at all levels of income and need. Accommodations range from single-room rentals, to single-family owner-occupied dwellings, etc.

1b) A living community integrates the needs of day-to-day life. There are stores, barbershops, schools, doctor’s offices, etc. all within walking distance of the people. This is important because transportation can be a major expense for the poor, but it’s even more important because it gets people out and meeting one another and forming the human aspects of a community. Public places are occupied nearly 24 hours a day and people look out for one another.

1c) A living community is integrated with other living communities. Lower income communities that are isolated “across the tracks” wither and become centers of despair and crime. Lower income communities that, along with middle and upper income communities, combine to form meta-communities, remain alive. Lower income areas provide places for service workers which do not require them to commute. Also, lower income areas in proximity to higher income areas generate “Bohemian” buffer zones (though steps must be taken to make sure rising costs do not drive out the original inhabitants).

2) There are two main reasons this doesn’t happen.

2a) The failure of planning authorities to recognize the life-giving aspects of traditional community structures and the failure of modernist approaches. Paradoxically, most contemporary Americans consider modernist cities to be traditional. (The suburb, where middle-class families live in “Leave-it-Beaver” blandness, is a modernist invention.) So even when planners get past the idea of government warehouses for the poor, their first thought is: “the poor need suburbs!” Wrong.

2b) The business models surrounding home loans. Banks see the individual home not as a place for people to live for generations, but at most an investment instrument with a 20 year or so maturity. After that, what do they care? Also, the economics dictate against taking any risk, because the real risk and payoff are even shorter-term -- usually based on making a return from the person taking out the loan and advancing the career of a single loan officer who will most likely be in another part of the country working for a different bank by the time the owner has paid off the mortgage. There is no longer any real thought (and increasingly not even the pretence) that the bank is helping build a community which will be a good place for both the banker’s and the debtor’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

3) How to solve this?

3a) Educate ourselves about the fundamentals of what has historically worked to create living communities and how those things collapsed in America beginning in the 1940’s and 50’s (though it started earlier).

3b) Get involved in local planning boards. Support legislation which promotes living community structures and keeps banks and developers from making short-sighted financial decisions. Force governments, services, and financial entities to deal now with the long-term impacts (i.e. 50+ years) of the decisions they are making.

3c) Find out about post-modernist approaches to architecture and planning which combine the best of what we know about tradition with modern materials, techniques, and ideas. For example, modular construction methods (and construction permitting laws) which let poorer homeowners start with modest two or three room structures which can grow as finances allow.

3d) At the root of it all, we need to promote ideals which stress that wealth is based on community and happiness and not on things. Once we begin to focus on things as the source of happiness, it is an inevitable step to begin seeing people as things. Then, we start to see the people in an area not as a potential community, but as a bunch of tokens in an economic game, available to be moved into profit maximizing configurations. This means warehousing off the game board those who are not contributing: the poor, the elderly, the sick, etc.

-Neil

[Ishmael]

HUD also purchases and sells homes and has other programs whereby low income people can buy property, it's not just rental projects. Housing was the number one concern for city Social Workers at a conference I recently attended, I would guess that it is a major concern for anyone who works with America's poor -- musicman's *relative to other countries* non-existent class which he just described with contempt:


1) MOst people in public housing aren't qualified to get a loan.

2) Most people in public housing aren't prepared to own a home.

3) Giving away houses for cheap just further removes the dignity of that homeowner.

:sigh:

[themuzicman]

Um, Muz - where exactly is 'putting something into it' excluded? It's not like I came up with a full blown plan here (something I noted in my OP).

Well, before I owned a house, I spent 4 years going to college and another 6 years getting financially ready for home ownership through career development and other fiscal requirements. Not everyone has to go through this path, but everyone should be working to improve themselves from a financial standpoint, and when they put the work into doing that, then being able to afford a home is the reward of that hard work.

Giving someone a home, even if you just give them a loan, doesn't bring the kind of appreciation regarding what home ownership means.

As for them not qualifying for a loan, most don't qualify as renters either. They could never afford rental in the private market and many would be turned down on the basis of references anyway. But if you can pay rent you can obviously make a payment of some kind.

And giving them a home with a house payment woud just shift the problem you have with renters into homes that they own, at least until they are foreclosed.

Spending a lifetime paying rent is not going to get you anywhere. If we're gonna give them the money to do that with, doesn't it make more sense to have them working toward ownership than rental?

But the question is whether the individual should work towards home ownership, or whether it should be given to them.

We give people rentals, today, and those are nothing but trouble.
Michael

[Pilgrim]

I have to agree. It is true, for the most part, that you respect what you have worked for. Owership is about investment and swet equityI see this played out in homes and apartments where ever I have lived.

[NeilUnreal]

The issue I have with turning public housing into a rent vs. own argument is not based on the idea that it is not better to own -- in general it is better for a community if large numbers of dwellings are owner-occupied.

My issue is that ownership alone doesn't address the core structural issues which cause communities to fail and end having to deal with large numbers of unhoused poor.

For example, suppose we changed the loan regulations so that even a poor person could afford a home in an affluent suburb. How is that person going to get to work? Just because they own a home doesn't suddenly provide them with a white-collar income with which they can afford to commute by car; and -- in most cities at least -- the busses and subways don't serve the 'burbs.

And, as Jesus said, the poor will always be with us. A functioning society needs people at various levels of income and in varied careers. Hopefully, a lot of lower income people will be able to advance themselves and their families. But some will always be poor for a time, and some for all their lives. The laissez-faire capitalist ideal that we all can advance ourselves doesn't give the poor a roof over their heads while they are trying to do so.

So we need to do both: provide lower income people the ability to own homes and to do it while in structurally sound communities that develop and sustain life.

-Neil

[Teallaura]

The problem is not with making a payment. The problem is being able to afford the initial down payment on a mortgage. Most folks at that income level don't have 10 grand lying around for such a thing.:argh:
Pilgrim, I'm talking about creating a program tailored to provide 'public' housing via purchase rather than rental - why would you limit it by requiring a down payment?

We're gonna build them the units anyway - I'm proposing selling them the things (rent to own) rather than renting them. The house becomes their responsibility - you want a working toilet, you don't let your angry teen bust it with a sledge hammer (real case). The cost of repair comes out of your pocket - something that can't happen in PH rental units. Does create an incentive to take care of the things at the very least.

[Ryokan]

Honestly, I think the solution for the no qualifying for loans problem would be for the government to in some way subsidize their downpayment and offer some sort of assurance to the bank in question. I'd bet it'd still maintain most of the benefits of the plan, get rid of alot fo the negatives, and still be cheaper than the current system. And, Muz, they'd still haveto work to maintain the loan, and they still would own it. It'd be something to test, at least. The current system isn't so great we can't improve it, and teal is the only one with a idea out there that I can see as even hoping to be better. It, at least, tries to give people incentives to not be dependent. And, for those who successful maintain it, it gives themsome capital, which alot of these areas and communities are deviod of.

[Teallaura]

The issue I have with turning public housing into a rent vs. own argument is not based on the idea that it is not better to own -- in general it is better for a community if large numbers of dwellings are owner-occupied.

My issue is that ownership alone doesn't address the core structural issues which cause communities to fail and end having to deal with large numbers of unhoused poor.

For example, suppose we changed the loan regulations so that even a poor person could afford a home in an affluent suburb. How is that person going to get to work? Just because they own a home doesn't suddenly provide them with a white-collar income with which they can afford to commute by car; and -- in most cities at least -- the busses subways don't serve the 'burbs.

We need to do both: provide lower income people the ability to own homes in structurally sound communities that develop and sustain life.

-Neil

First, I never suggested I was proposing a comprehensive plan. Second, building PH in concentrated communities is a good bit of the problem. Maybe you can't build them in affluent neighborhoods, but there are good solid neighborhoods where you can put in a few. By spreading them out you eliminate much of the congestion that makes it hard for decent parents and families to avoid the influence of the streets and makes it easy for the 'streets to overrun the complexes.

Obviously it's not a complete solution - but this one aspect - rental - is failing miserably and always has. Maybe it's time for plan B until someone comes up with a comprehensive solution. In my opinion, ownership is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't get you all the way there.

[Teallaura]

:sigh:


Sorry, I'm having a bad day - didn't mean to sound so defensive. I'm really more exploring than proposing at this stage.

[themuzicman]

:argh:
Pilgrim, I'm talking about creating a program tailored to provide 'public' housing via purchase rather than rental - why would you limit it by requiring a down payment?

We're gonna build them the units anyway - I'm proposing selling them the things (rent to own) rather than renting them. The house becomes their responsibility - you want a working toilet, you don't let your angry teen bust it with a sledge hammer (real case). The cost of repair comes out of your pocket - something that can't happen in PH rental units. Does create an incentive to take care of the things at the very least.

Teal - basically, this would amount to a giveaway to the banks. If you give houses and loans to those who aren't prepared to deal with them, they're going to be abused, broken down, and then foreclosed at an alarming rate...

Michael

[themuzicman]

First, I never suggested I was proposing a comprehensive plan. Second, building PH in concentrated communities is a good bit of the problem. Maybe you can't build them in affluent neighborhoods, but there are good solid neighborhoods where you can put in a few. By spreading them out you eliminate much of the congestion that makes it hard for decent parents and families to avoid the influence of the streets and makes it easy for the 'streets to overrun the complexes.

Obviously it's not a complete solution - but this one aspect - rental - is failing miserably and always has. Maybe it's time for plan B until someone comes up with a comprehensive solution. In my opinion, ownership is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't get you all the way there.

The problem is that ownership doesn't solve anything. It's the WORK related to getting a mortgage and a home on your own that changes things.

Michael

[Ishmael]

Is HUD (http://www.hud.gov/) somehow inscrutable to you guys?

[Teallaura]

The problem is that ownership doesn't solve anything. It's the WORK related to getting a mortgage and a home on your own that changes things.

MichaelRental is somehow better? :hrm:

Ownership does have some benefits: It transfers maintenance responsibility to the occupant (that sure qualifies as work!); there is a strong tendency to care better for things you own rather than things you rent (a tendency that can be encouraged even more by making it difficult to get a second house sans moving to another city for a job - and requiring proof of same); it can be used to break up the complexes that are breeding grounds for drugs and violence.

[Teallaura]

Is HUD (http://www.hud.gov/) somehow inscrutable to you guys?Even HUD has requirements - we're talking about folks who can't even qualify for HUD - hence their being in PH in the first place.

[NeilUnreal]

Sorry, I'm having a bad day - didn't mean to sound so defensive. I'm really more exploring than proposing at this stage.

I think your idea is a good one. Especially that lower income families need to be interspersed with middle income families.

I'm not worried that you don't understand the broader issues. I'm worried that when the idea is being discussed, the arguments tend to gravitate towards the purely financial aspects of the thing. This is bad for two reasons:

1) When finance is the focus, if the financial aspects look bad, the idea is shot-down. There is no room for the concept that we are buying something for people and communities that may make it worth doing even if the spreadsheets don't show a market rate-of-return in the first five years.

2) Even if the project is approved, if finances have been the focus of the discussion, chances are that the issues of community structure have not been properly considered. That way, even if financial means are provided, they may end up being poured down the drain, and neither the community nor the lower income home owners are better off in ten years.

So it's sometimes better, I feel, to get people on board with the required structural changes up front. That gets people thinking long-term and makes it easier to justify the financial concerns.

-Neil

[Teallaura]

Teal - basically, this would amount to a giveaway to the banks. If you give houses and loans to those who aren't prepared to deal with them, they're going to be abused, broken down, and then foreclosed at an alarming rate...

Michael
What banks? Muz - we're talking about a shift in how PH works. PH is rental now - convert to rent to own. Foreclosures would revert to the state - but since these folks are paying rent from welfare moneys now there's no good reason to assume that you would have any particular rise in foreclosures. Sure there will be some - some people get evicted from PH, too - but that's not the norm. Once in, most stay in, moving only around units or complexes but staying on the program.

[themuzicman]

Rental is somehow better? :hrm:

Ownership does have some benefits: It transfers maintenance responsibility to the occupant (that sure qualifies as work!);

If they do it. The point of working to earn one's mortgage and home is that when they own the home, they'll take pride in their ownership and actually do the maintenance. If they haven't been through the process of gaining ownership, there's no incentive for them to do the work of maintaining the home. That's the whole point.

there is a strong tendency to care better for things you own rather than things you rent (a tendency that can be encouraged even more by making it difficult to get a second house sans moving to another city for a job - and requiring proof of same); it can be used to break up the complexes that are breeding grounds for drugs and violence.

Close.. There's a strong tendencey to care better for things you've worked to earn than things you've been given or don't own. Just because you give someone a house and a mortgage doesn't mean they're going to act any differently than they did when you gave them a rental unit.

I've given my kids a car to use when they get their driver's license, but oddly enough, they act much differently when they finally purchase a car of their own.

Same thing applies, here. It's not just ownership, but having ownership be a result of your own work to get there.

Michael

[themuzicman]

What banks? Muz - we're talking about a shift in how PH works. PH is rental now - convert to rent to own. Foreclosures would revert to the state - but since these folks are paying rent from welfare moneys now there's no good reason to assume that you would have any particular rise in foreclosures. Sure there will be some - some people get evicted from PH, too - but that's not the norm. Once in, most stay in, moving only around units or complexes but staying on the program.

you'll have all the problems of rental housing, except that after the "homeowners" neglect their housese for a few years, they won't be worth the loan value remaining on them, and they'll be stuck in them.

Michael

[Ishmael]

Even HUD has requirements - we're talking about folks who can't even qualify for HUD - hence their being in PH in the first place.
Well sure they have requirements... we all have requirements... but a person who is serious about breaking the cycle of poverty will use social services to get from where they are (rental ph and a dead end job, etc.) to where they want to be (high skills job with livable wage, benefits and a career path and home ownership).

I am a case worker. What I do is help people get high skills education and job placement. Most of the people that my organization helps complete their education and start working in our community because we use intensive case management to keep them on track. The 10% that drop out, for whatever reason, are the stereotypes that emerge from social services with nothing, continue to live off of welfare in public housing, etc. These are the peple that take most of my time for case management and the people that critics of social services use as their examples of "something for nothing" results.

HUD has a reasonable path that most people do take when it comes to housing. I know this because I work with people in Public housing and they are required to have a plan to exit rentals into normal housing or into an ownership program. One part of that plan might be entering high-skill job training with me, for instance...

The minority use and abuse the system and end up being a stereotype of the entire system. The problem doesn't seem to be the programs, its what some people choose to do with the opportunity they are given-- either take advantage and do nothing or move along towads self-sufficiency.

[Pilgrim]

It's an interesting idea. 0 down mortgage to encourage home ownership. I do no that the government does have a program like this for ffrist time, low income buyers. Not for public houseing of course, but for purchasing a home otherwise.

Of course, what happens when the home owner decides to sell? Does it have to revert back to the government? Since it's the result of a low income deal do they inturn have to sell the house on a rent or lease to own basis to the next person? And if they don't, how do they get access to the equity in the property to be able to purchase the next home?

I know Habitat writes into the contract that if the person sells the house before a certain time period then a substantial portion of the selling price goes back to Habitat.

[Pilgrim]

Rental is somehow better? :hrm:

Ownership does have some benefits: It transfers maintenance responsibility to the occupant (that sure qualifies as work!); there is a strong tendency to care better for things you own rather than things you rent (a tendency that can be encouraged even more by making it difficult to get a second house sans moving to another city for a job - and requiring proof of same); it can be used to break up the complexes that are breeding grounds for drugs and violence.
Yes but why is that? It's not simply because you own something, it's because you worked hard to own it. Look at the way teenagers treat stuff their parents give them for free verses stuff they buy with their own money and you see this principle.

Take me for an example. Just after seminary, before I was married, I lived in an apartment with two friends. I didn't think much about putting holes in the walls or other stuff like that. Up keep of the driveway etc. But when I got married, squirlled away money for a down payment and made that first purchase, well, you better darn well believe no one is pounding holes in walls to hang pictures without my firm say so first! Because, gosh darn it, I paid a heck of a lot of money for this place and it's going to be nice.

You see, it has more to do with the fact that I worked hard, and spend my own hard earned money to purchase. That includes the down payment to the bank for the mortgage.

I see what you are saying, and I understand your idea is just a musing. So take the criticism of it in the same light. If this is not a fully thought out plan of yours then you really shouldn't feel so put out if others spit ball ideas back.

I think you're on to something though. I really do. I'm just pointing out the same thing Michael is pointing out: simple ownership is not the real solution, it's what goes into becoming an owner that makes the difference.

One other aspect where owning is better than renting is the tremendous tax break you get on your mortgage payment. Though, if you have no mortgage, you don't get that break so it's a wash in a rent to own situation.

Although, I can sort of see where you're going, at the end of 30 years of renting to own, you're likely to really cherish the place.

[Alien]

Something like this was done in England.

Traditionally, local authorities had built houses that were supplied to lower income families at a relatively low rent (relative to the market, that is). The houses were maintained by the local authority, who were effectively the landlord, and were responsible for maintenance, repairs and so on. The occupants were not necessarily desperately poor, just lower income. Those that were really poor could still live in these houses, and their rent would be paid for them on an "as needed" basis.

Later, the local authorities found that the expenses of maintaining these houses became a financial burden, particularly for those that had a small tax base. A plan was conceived whereby the occupants could buy the houses that they were living in, at less than market value (all this is from memory, so I may have some details wrong, but it was maybe around 80%). I don't remember if a down payment was required, or exactly how the loans were set up, but I think they were arranged through the local authority in some way. Certainly the houses were not "given away", just offered at reduced cost. Many people took advantage of this.

This proved to be a great success from both points of view. The former tenant was able to own a house (and lets not forget that that first step into the housing market is the big one; once you are in you are a beneficiary of what has historically been one of the best investments of all time. If you are out, the cost of a house becomes more and more unaffordable). They did indeed take a pride in ownership. You could walk down a street and note the owned houses, which were noticably better maintained.

The local authorities gained by getting rid of a financial liability.

Two negative results emerged. First, people would buy their houses then sell them almost immediately at full market value, making a profit in the process. This was dealt with by introducing restrictions on resale, I can't remember the details. Second, many local authorities failed to build more houses to replace those that had been sold off, and there emerged a shortage of accommodation to offer to those genuinely in need.

In general though, I would say the the plan was a success, and enabled many to step up to home ownership who might never have been able to do so.

[Rubia Warren]

I haven't read through this whole thread so forgive me if I repeat something anyone else has said.

The government already does provide low income people with a chance to own a home. When a person receives voucher based section 8 assistance (as opposed to project-based) they have an option to go on a program through it whereby whatever their portion of the rent is a month goes into an escrow account, sometimes matched/doubled by section 8. It is a way for the working poor to "save up" mooney for a down payment on a house.

Section 8 remains with them after they apply that escrow money to the home they wanna buy, and also puts their payment at a sliding scale, based on their incomes.

Not only that, but localities get particular grants for homeownership for the poor.
In my area, they have a housing partnership-- the city rehabs an old house, a poor person goes through homeownership class, moves in down payment-free, with a super low interest loan. So you get more people into home ownership, and less homes in the ghetto dilapidating.
But that's the bad thing about that particular program-- you gotta get a house in the ghetto. :thumbd: But I guess if that's all you can hope for, then hey. Better than nothing!

If one is poor, whatever the need may be, there is usually a program out there to cover it, unless one is one who falls through the cracks. I have found, though, during my short stint as a welfera, that a great deal of the poor often don't even wanna spend the energy to go down and apply for something. They want free stuff, or cheap/discounted stuff....... but they also want it to come beating down their doors to get in. :nsm:

Every locality should give the poor a saturday class on tenacity. Not all poor. But quite a few need it.

[Ryokan]

I haven't read through this whole thread so forgive me if I repeat something anyone else has said.

The government already does provide low income people with a chance to own a home. When a person receives voucher based section 8 assistance (as opposed to project-based) they have an option to go on a program through it whereby whatever their portion of the rent is a month goes into an escrow account, sometimes matched/doubled by section 8. It is a way for the working poor to "save up" mooney for a down payment on a house.

Section 8 remains with them after they apply that escrow money to the home they wanna buy, and also puts their payment at a sliding scale, based on their incomes.

Not only that, but localities get particular grants for homeownership for the poor.
In my area, they have a housing partnership-- the city rehabs an old house, a poor person goes through homeownership class, moves in down payment-free, with a super low interest loan. So you get more people into home ownership, and less homes in the ghetto dilapidating.
But that's the bad thing about that particular program-- you gotta get a house in the ghetto. :thumbd: But I guess if that's all you can hope for, then hey. Better than nothing!

If one is poor, whatever the need may be, there is usually a program out there to cover it, unless one is one who falls through the cracks. I have found, though, during my short stint as a welfera, that a great deal of the poor often don't even wanna spend the energy to go down and apply for something. They want free stuff, or cheap/discounted stuff....... but they also want it to come beating down their doors to get in. :nsm:

Every locality should give the poor a saturday class on tenacity. Not all poor. But quite a few need it.
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

[James Peter]

Something like this was done in England.

...

In general though, I would say the the plan was a success, and enabled many to step up to home ownership who might never have been able to do so.

Thats pretty accurate Alien. I'd agree that the 'right to buy' scheme was a success although there are problems now in that not enough new houses are being built, in London and the South East at least.

[Rubia Warren]

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Ryokan! :hug:

[Ryokan]

Ryokan! :hug:
All the cool people on Tweb are on hiatus Roobz.:bawl: Except, of course, anyone else reading this post. Not you guys. You are way cool. :cough: But Seriously Roobz. You people need to start coming back!

[Teallaura]

All the cool people on Tweb are on hiatus Roobz.:bawl: Except, of course, anyone else reading this post. Not you guys. You are way cool. :cough: But Seriously Roobz. You people need to start coming back!

:brood: You dissin' me in my own thread? :eh:


:hmph: She's been all over the place the last couple days... You need to get out more....



:hi: Rubia!

[Ryokan]

:brood: You dissin' me in my own thread? :eh: I am gutsy like that.


:hmph: She's been all over the place the last couple days... You need to get out more....



:hi: Rubia!
I've been without a home computer the last three days.

[Rubia Warren]

w00t!

It sucks to be without a computer. Mine goot fried in a storm back in May, but I got a replacement the other day so I am back.

Something's weird with my keyboard too, it types out double o's and L's. Yeah.... it was the keyboard. :whistle:

Winter is almost here so..... you better get your computer straightened out or I will cry. :bawl:

[Ryokan]

w00t!

It sucks to be without a computer. Mine goot fried in a storm back in May, but I got a replacement the other day so I am back.

Something's weird with my keyboard too, it types out double o's and L's. Yeah.... it was the keyboard. :whistle:

Winter is almost here so..... you better get your computer straightened out or I will cry. :bawl:
I have a laptop, and my ac adaptor started spitting fire, so as soon as gateway sends me the new one I am back on track. Until then *sniff* I am off the web. I forgot how boring TV is.

[Rubia Warren]

I have a laptop, and my ac adaptor started spitting fire, so as soon as gateway sends me the new one I am back on track. Until then *sniff* I am off the web.
:yipee: woo!
I forgot how boring TV is.
Heh try being without cable. :eek:

[NeilUnreal]

My ancient 10 year old NMB keyboard likes to double some chars, but I keep it because it has actual key switches which click and have a nice feel (unlike hybrid membrane/keycap keyboards). Every once in a vast age I clean it out, which helps for a little while.

-Neil

[Rubia Warren]

My ancient 10 year old NMB keyboard likes to double some chars, but I keep it because it has actual key switches which click and have a nice feel (unlike hybrid membrane/keycap keyboards). Every once in a vast age I clean it out, which helps for a little while.

-Neil

Neil!! :hug:

[Ryokan]

:yipee: woo!

Heh try being without cable. :eek:
I am right now. hence the problem.

[NeilUnreal]

Rubia! Good to see ya! :yipee:

-Neil

[Rubia Warren]

I am right now. hence the problem.

OOOoooooOOOOoooOOO........ me, too. :yes:

I think that is more than just a coincidence. I think it's like the E.T. and Elliot thing. Whatever you are going through, I am going through.

We're twins! Don't you see! :yipee:

[Rubia Warren]

Rubia! Good to see ya! :yipee:

-Neil

:hi: Good to see you, too.

And I diidn't say hi back to Teally, but I will now, for she (and Bandecoot) are, too, the wind beneath my wings :hug:


(I so really really want all of you to have that cheesy song in yoour heads foor the rest of the afternoon.... did it work?)

[Teallaura]

Y'all are spamming my thread! :brood:


And Ry's lucky he didn't do that Monday - I was on my obligatory powerkick and would have matrixed him! :grin:

[Ryokan]

OOOoooooOOOOoooOOO........ me, too. :yes:

I think that is more than just a coincidence. I think it's like the E.T. and Elliot thing. Whatever you are going through, I am going through.

We're twins! Don't you see! :yipee:
Terrifying! :lol:

I really like Passions, actually. its my show right now, sad as it sounds. And I go over to friends to get my nip/tuck fix.

[Zeluvia]

San Antonio has "sold" some old public housing areas to a non-profit company that is going to build "green" affordable housing in a planned neighborhood. The difference? 60 units of housing to 1000 units of depressing sardine can apartments.

I agree Teal, programs that help people own homes are better for everyone.

And those get rich quick as a slumlord or by jacking up Real Estate prices commercials on TV need to examined for exploitation of legal loopholes, and put out of business.

[anthrogirl]

I find Muhammad Yunis's work in micro-lending to be an outstanding solution to the problem of poverty (and I'm not the only one--he snagged the Nobel Prize for his work this year).


Microcredit is the extension of small loans to enterpreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans. It has proven to be an effective and popular measure in the ongoing struggle against poverty,


Please visit the link for a much better explanation of microcredit than I could ever hope to provide:

http://www.grameen-info.org/

ag

[Ryokan]

I find Muhammad Yunis's work in micro-lending to be an outstanding solution to the problem of poverty (and I'm not the only one--he snagged the Nobel Prize for his work this year).


Microcredit is the extension of small loans to enterpreneurs too poor to qualify for traditional bank loans. It has proven to be an effective and popular measure in the ongoing struggle against poverty,


Please visit the link for a much better explanation of microcredit than I could ever hope to provide:

http://www.grameen-info.org/

agUnfortunately, micro credit really has only been tried in areas where micro means quite micro, like 25-100 dollars. Its unclear it would work in the US.

[Teallaura]

Unfortunately, micro credit really has only been tried in areas where micro means quite micro, like 25-100 dollars. Its unclear it would work in the US.Sadly, I doubt seriously that it would work in the US. Credit unions have existed as an option for years, but they are little understood and even less utilized.

There's a big difference in the areas where it's worked and the US - in many of those areas people actually do have a good grasp of money management (budgeting, saving, planning). In the US we've all but destroyed that understanding in our welfare system. Loaning money to someone who can't manage a family budget isn't going to result in a small business of even moderate success.

[Ryokan]

Sadly, I doubt seriously that it would work in the US. Credit unions have existed as an option for years, but they are little understood and even less utilized.

There's a big difference in the areas where it's worked and the US - in many of those areas people actually do have a good grasp of money management (budgeting, saving, planning). In the US we've all but destroyed that understanding in our welfare system. Loaning money to someone who can't manage a family budget isn't going to result in a small business of even moderate success.
I don't buy that. In most cases, you need a business plan or something for a micro-loan. In the beginning, they had trouble with people running off and gambling or drinking their loan away. So they created requirements and a preference against loaning to women. In the US, the cost of starting a small business are far more than $50 for some chickens or cows, so that doesn't help. That's the problem with microloans in the US. But poor people in most places in the world, welfare or not, have poor money management skills. I don't see how you can pin it on that.

[Teallaura]

Um, actually, you supported my point. In poverty stricken regions the income is so low that management skills will at best keep you alive, not advance you financially (and obviously I don't mean planning a portfolio - I'm referring more to prioritizing spending). In the US we constantly see spending that is utterly out of step with circumstance (when you have a choices between power or cable, cable is always the wrong answer :doh:). That's not as true in the most destitute regions - the very regions where $50 - $100 can make such a difference.

You're going to have compliance issues in any culture with any loan - that's pretty much a given. And there will be exceptions in both directions: poor people in the US who are excellent managers and poor people elsewhere who stink at it. But we've so taken the incentive for good management skills out of the system that we do have a different problem here. In most regions, you screw up, you go hungry. In the US there's someone there to bail you out of the worst possible consequences 99% of the time.

That's not an argument for a particular policy, just an observation of the effect. I mentioned credit unions before because they can provide an excellent means of pooling funds to do exactly the same thing that micro loans do. In fact, they were originally designed for just that. But very few are formed by the groups that would most benefit from them. That looks to me to be a deficit in both education (knowing about them and how to use them) and in incentive.

I'm not 'pinning' it on anything. I'm simply saying that resources exist here which can have the same effect but are seriously under-utilized. In my opinion two big factors there are the lack of management skills (which would play into understanding how a CU can be of benefit) and the lack of incentive. Because the existing resources are so under-utilized, I don't think micro credit, even adjusted for the inflated US prices, will work as effectively.

[anthrogirl]

Microlending has been most successful in third world countries. It is my understanding that the model is being adapted to first world countries as well.

ag