Is There a House for all of us?

[404.livejournal.com]

During my long and winding road through undergraduate hell, I took a developmental psychology class (basically a fancy way of saying “we will explore how we learn and develop over time the way we do”); the concept of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was discussed.  The context the class used MHN was to explain how infants internally navigate the various desires and needs, given that they have no way to enunciate to their parents or caregivers other than through the most basic ways to express themselves: babbling, crying, smiling, etc.  For the uninitiated, the Hierarchy of Needs (see image)
 tries to explain and categorize the various physical and emotional needs that humans possess in a way that is easy follow and rational. Maslow’s Hierarchy is not without critics though, and those who wish to add on to it based off of original research, but I think for the example of this OP the current accepted version is acceptable.  There are five steps of levels: from the most basic needs to self-actualization.  The pyramid implies that the lower level needs have to be met before the individual can achieve every level or step above it.  For example, to meet employment security, you need to be able to have access to a place that is safe, have access to food, water, etc.  As you move up the chain, the needs become less bodily oriented and more psychological (needs of acceptance, intimacy, self-esteem/worth), and even then they are met, there is no guarantee that due to outside circumstances you can’t slide down the chain as well as go up it.


If anyone is wondering, I do have a reason for this OP; I would like to give an anecdote: when I was younger, my father and I were reduced to living out of our car for a couple of weeks, due to our house being foreclosed on and my father not having any visible means to support us outside of living in and out of hotels for most of the summer of 1994.  It was probably the worst summer I have ever experienced, from the most basic needs or having a stable roof over my head not met on a consistent basis to the constant threat of physical safety due to the checkered areas we would stay due to the paradox of things costing more to poorer people due to the economy than their wealthier counterparts. For example: an extended stay hotel could easily run 800 dollars every four weeks (not a month, gotta figure in those extra few days) compared to 500-550 a month for a larger apartment, but due to poorer people not having credit or references or the security deposit... you get the idea. But that's not what I wanted to discuss though, but it is on the same vein: housing. 


I recently came across an Amnesty International web page that said that there are roughly 3.5 million homeless in the United States, but there are 18.5 million vacant homes as well, about a six to one ratio. Call me the most bleeding heart you wish, I personally believe that it is unconscionable to allow millions of Americans who are at the lowest point to wallow while millions of homes sit vacant and depreciating in curb appeal and selling price.  I can see how the matching of homeless Americans with vacant houses can be a win-win-win for all involved: the homeless get a place they can call home, the banks get a person to live in the house and will be motivated to keep it up (hopefully, but I have a way to better ensure this, read on), and neighbors who have been seeing their home values plummet due to the glut of unsold houses will get a reprieve.   

How is this possible? It would take a major act of government, but it's doable: first the government would have to take ownership of the houses to be parceled out to homeless and needy.  This is a major hurdle, but I am sure banks would be happy to work with the government knowing that they can offload houses they can't sell for market value.  Second, the houses and tenants would be put together government via agencies with the knowledge that those people who can work who would live in said house are offered jobs (possibly to work on repairing their own house and others like theirs) in exchange for living.  The houses in turn aren't so much a welfare act, but as an opportunity to gain job skills while being able to not live on the street.  Also, the government should make the private ownership of the property available to those people that have taken advantage of what was offered and prospered, given them another reason to take care of where they live.

Anyway, this is all pie in the sky (and probably not well thought out, but hey, it's a Monday night) liberal bleeding heart, but I think it could be successfully implemented if there was enough support for all sides to at least give it a pilot and see how it went. What say my you, my talk_politics friends?

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Not to comment on the moral side, but you'd run into a huge NIMBY problem. Sad to say, but a large number of homeless people have serious issues with either drugs, or mental illness, or both. Try selling them as neighbors to anyone.

[404.livejournal.com]

I agree that many homeless are people that can't adjust or prefer to be homeless due the drug addiction/ mental illness, I would think that offering a group home option or some sort of halfway house would be preferable than society wiping their hands of any sort of obligation to help. Not saying that's what you are implying, though.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

There are areas where there are large numbers of houses all together that are empty. Those can be used and there wouldn't be any neighbors to have an issue with it.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

I am surprised and delighted by this post. I can think of some things that would make the plan, as proposed, impractical, but it's fundamentally a good idea.

First is the obvious question: if this is win-win, why hasn't someone already stepped up from the private sector to make this happen? There's already a strong market of house-flippers out there who buy shitty property, fix it up and sell it for more. You'd think they could turn a profit by putting homeless people to work for them in exchange for the rewards you've described, but in reality they mostly elect to do it the usual way with contractors.

It's not always a good bet that the recipients of social welfare will be economically productive in return. It would be nice to think that all homeless people are ready and willing to work, learn skills and fix up their own homes so they can buy them if they're given a chance - and this is certainly the case for many - but there are also plenty who struggle with addictions, mental or physical illness, or simply a lack of motivation or life skills, who either wouldn't or couldn't take proper advantage of such an opportunity, and our plan will have to account for them, too. Should the government just swallow the losses and accept that some of its properties will be ruined, or will there be some kind of quid-pro-quo system of rewarding only the people who are taking good care and adding enough value to their subsidized houses?

There is probably some middle ground here which makes sense.

[404.livejournal.com]

First is the obvious question: if this is win-win, why hasn't someone already stepped up from the private sector to make this happen? There's already a strong market of house-flippers out there who buy shitty property, fix it up and sell it for more. You'd think they could turn a profit by putting homeless people to work for them in exchange for the rewards you've described, but in reality they mostly elect to do it the usual way with contractors.

Generally flippers are interested in getting the property flipped in weeks, with as little investment as possible. This means to finding depressed houses in good neighborhoods to fix and then sell for as high a price as possible. There is no interest to help anyone but their own pocketbook.

I don't think anyone would expect 100% ROI, just like no one expects it with any welfare program, but I think there has to be the carrot and the stick approach to help sway those who care more about one side than the other.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I've heard of programs that allow technically homeless people to live rent-free in foreclosed houses so long as they keep them up. Some cities have so many (Detroit, Vegas) that to put them all on the market at once would crash the market; the longer they remain unsold, though, the more it costs to keep them.

Before we get all excited about this "win-win," I can tell you from personal experience (working in a law firm years ago that specialized in foreclosure) being a landlord is no picnic, especially for banks. That's why this is kinda quasi-official. The banks get to ignore the people living in the houses, and the people get to ignore the eviction notices (that aren't enforced).

I don't have an answer for this problem, and I've been homeless. Working with a job and everything, and living in a van.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I thought they should do that with so many of the homeless veterans (I forget the statistic, but I think 30 percent of homeless are Vietnam era veterans). But yeah, I am in favor of the idea you're suggesting. Totally. And I don't know why the state of Michigan doesn't offer incentive programs for veterans to just take over homes in Detroit and other depressed areas, and help them out.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I have met some homeless veterans who shun assistance programs because of bad experiences dealing with the VA. They may the exception rather than the rule.

[404.livejournal.com]

I don't think all ~18.5 million are in private ownership, even taking 75% off the total (I'm just throwing out a number) still leaves ~4.7 million homes, and I doubt that all 3.5 million homeless are without family as well, it's still doable.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

when did you become a socialist? bravo.

[404.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't categorize myself as a socialist or capitalist or any -ist, jut seeing problems and trying to think of ways to solve them.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

This sounds like the HOPE program from a few decades ago by Jack Kemp, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17786&st=home+ownership&st1=#axzz1xYLO4GGt

It wasn't as ambitious, but it did a lot of the same things. The federal government ended up owning a lot of forclosed houses, parts of this program were aimed at turning them over, although it targeted the working poor in subsided housing rather than the homeless.

It didn't turn out too well, but then it wasn't funded in any meaningful way.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

I do not think that the HOPE program was not successful, I just do not think that people were comfortable with the entirely foreseeable medium term results of that program. The people who use that kind of program often start earning serious money pretty soon after enrolling.

Why?

Because qualifying (and even knowing about the program) requires a bit of specialized knowledge. So the people who take advantage of the program tend to be better-educated, often recent college graduates (or even graduate students) or people starting their own businesses and in the broke years of the business. So ten years later, you see these loans concentrated among pretty solid middle-class thirty somethings who bought their home in a newly gentrified neighborhood for a song, while bartending right out of college.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The boom will come back, then it will be time to cash in. If it doesn't then the whole world is screwed beyond owning some houses worth nothing in the US.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

I am in a rather unique situation, and this type of solution would involve me and my family. I have said that people have a right to have a home, not a mansion, but a home that is not about to collapse on them. Your plan would involve participants of the program to work on their home, and others that were in this program. While that is fine for the unemployed homeless, what about those people who are homeless, and have a job.

I lost my home, not my job, my boss is aware of my situation, and is unable to assist me.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I always thought the bailout should have bought out properties. This would have seen the banks get their money, it just would have passed through a few hands first. Not only could you solve many homeless issues (not all, even with a free house some people can't stay stable), but it would have offered another way out for millions of others who have now lost their home. You could have easily negotiated your mortgage to be pretty much a public housing place and paid accordingly (we pay 25% of your income for public housing here), but when your income ticked over a certain level you would go back to paying off a mortgage.

One of the big problems that will come out of the financial crisis in years to come is the amount of people who have been displaced in the last few years. This leads to big problems as people move away from social networks that can help them, the security of knowledge of your area and the links to the community that everyone acknowledges is necessary for a healthy and happy human. This impact is massive on kids. I work with the "troubled youf" as it were, and a big problem that I see is kids who have shuffled around to 10 different schools in 10 years and the like. These kids never learn how to put down roots. They never learn how to feel safe and secure. This goes right to Maslow; if they never learn how to do those things at the bottom of the pyramid they won't be successful at the rest. By the time you take in those that haven't just moved because they've become homeless, but the ones who have moved to poorer neighbourhoods or whose family have moved taking jobs, this is going to be a major issue for the up and coming generation. There is going to be a significant chunk of the US population who are missing a really vital stage of development.

In sacrificing everything to save the economy, I think it's going to become apparent that the US has sacrificed society for the economy.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

While the bailout could have been used to buy properties, I think it would have been more useful going to people. IF I had been given fifty or one hundred thousand dollars, I would have bought a home with it. Go figure?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

There has to be some screening for sure, but it's generally sound. How about sweetening the pot by having the VA optionally cover the actual mortgage for returning veterans (similar to a reverse-mortgage)? They could make the payments based on their ability to pay and the VA could retain title after the veteran no longer needs the property and the market improves. IMO guaranteed housing is a fair safety net in exchange for military service.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The gov't buying up surplus housing and using them as low cost housing isn't altogether different than section 8. All you'd do in this case is add an extra component that would encourage more housing to be built due to the removal of the possibility of failure by the constructor.

The bulk of homelessness is transitory. Long term homelessness stems largely from drug abuse or mental illness. Establishing free housing supplied for by the gov't isn't really going to fix that. Mental health programs that focus on aberrant social behavior is realistically your best bet to treating long term homelessness.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Do you support the use of neuroleptic drugs by treatment programs?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

There is a religious attitude toward home ownership in the US. Not everyone has what it takes to manage property. Any program of public housing should include communal alternatives.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think the one problem with this is that the people who are homeless for unavoidable financial issues and/or mental illness aren't going to be able to adapt easily to owning their own homes. This idea would require a lot of study and careful thought as far as implementing it goes, at least to implement it successfully.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

There's another problem. Most of the foreclosed houses around here are in the exurbs, the sticks, as opposed to closer to the city centers. Houses in the sticks are shitty for marginal living. Too far from employment, too expensive to heat (compared to good apartments), to few services (bus lines, police). A homeless person is safer camping in a city park or quasi-tribal homeless camp than being alone without a phone in the sticks.

That was the real damage done in the last stages of the housing bubble, having people "drive until they qualified" and have to commute so far from any gainful employment, they started defaulting when gas doubled in price. These houses may be empty, yes, but they are empty for a reason. There may be many others in different cities, but in Seattle at least the city core is back to the old pre-crash prices.

And again, I say this as someone who experienced the homeless condition back in '89.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Call me the most bleeding heart you wish, I personally believe that it is unconscionable to allow millions of Americans who are at the lowest point to wallow while millions of homes sit vacant and depreciating in curb appeal and selling price.

So very true. You're a bleeding heart, welcome to the club :)

However, your solution, whilst providing an immediate result, is not in the longer term best interest.

If you want a really good solution to the problem which can be implemented on a local level; increase site ratings, and reduce rates on buildings.

My study of housing development in Pittsburgh demonstrated that small decreases in the tax rate on buildings resulted in substantial increases in the amount of new housing constructed in the city. In contrast, increases in the tax rate on land had no undesirable effects.

The evidence from Pittsburgh strongly supports the idea that cities concerned with economic development should shift their real estate taxes from buildings to land [in order to] maintain revenues while encouraging development.

Given the results of this study, land value taxation seems to be a desirable strategy for central cities to employ in seeking to encourage development and attract households. Because households are relatively mobile within metropolitan areas, land value taxation may permit central cities to attract households that would otherwise locate in nearly suburban jurisdictions.

Bourassa, Steven C., Land Value Taxation and Housing Development, Effects of the Property Tax Reform in Three Types of Cities, from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, January 1990, Vol. 49, Issue 1.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

This is basically what I do for a living. I buy distressed properties, repair them to a level where ordinary folk can fix them, and then lease/option them to people that basically have nowhere else to go. So I have some rather specialized experience in this area.


As for the government "taking ownership" of the properties, there is already a program in place that does exactly this, "tax foreclosure". Most states foreclose on properties with unpaid taxes every 2 or 3 years. Just in herkimer county, NY, there were upwards of 30 homes auctioned last month, most selling for 10-20k.


The first problem is that there *are* homes in place and existant for those "homeless". Many shading to most of those "homeless" are not sleeping under bridges, or even in their cars, they are living in homeless "shelters" that have conditions similar to college dorms, are living in hotel rooms paid for by welfare agencies or charities, are "couchsurfing", or hordes of other circumstances other than sleeping under bridges. Nearly all statistics are lies.

The second real problem is that the vacant homes are generally not where the "homeless" people are, or where they are likely to stay if offered. Some are in areas with few jobs (detroit, upstate NY), some are in areas that are downright dangerous, (detroit, Baltimore city).

The third is regulatory. "fixing up" older homes has a large number of difficulties that are not obvious to people that haven't been in the trade. First is the hazmats, lead, asbestos, and mold are present in virtually *every* distressed property. Working with them requires certifications and rather extensive (and expensive) equipment. Then there's the physical hazard, renovation work is construction work, it involves power tools, is dangerous, people can and do get injured and/or killed quite regularly. You'll be waiting a long time getting OSHA to agree to putting toolbelts on the "homeless". Generally, I get around this issue by doing the work myself, because hiring a contractor or employee to do it would be prohibitively expensive/flat-out illegal.

The forth is also regulatory, as a government program, all the homes thus used will most likely need to be inspected. All pre-1978 homes contain lead paint, few of them have wiring that meets todays codes, none have insulation compliant with DOE regs, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Please believe me when I tell you that bringing distressed properties into complete code compliance is an impossibility, cheaper to tear them down and rebuild. And yet, were it a government housing program, they could hardly put the homeless in houses that don't even meet the building codes! Hell, many cities have closed down soup-kitchens and sandwhich makers for the homeless for not using "approved" kitchens.

The fifth is that home ownership involves rather high functionality, it's *expensive* too. Honestly, most of the people that I lease houses to fail to become owners, at some point, most of them fail to pay and move out, despite the fact that my homes are among the cheapest rents in the area.


Anyway, these are some of the structural problems, leaving off completely on the ethical ones.