If your in Cleveland, take a drive through the Kinsman neighborhood or Slavic Village, and you will easily see the symbols of America's most recent housing crisis. Fueled by poor regulation and exuberant behavior from both banks and homeowners, the era of sub-prime lending has given the argument against homeownership in America even more credibility. The blight, crime, and poverty associated with the recent foreclosure crisis, particularly in urban America, should give our leaders an even greater sense of urgency to dramatically transform our nation's housing policies.
Check out Time's Magazines new cover story: "The Case Against Homeownership"
It's a good piece that can help inform a new conversation about how we can bring prosperity and stability to communities like Cleveland who are still struggling to recover from our most recent housing crisis.
Wish I could read the full article online, but alas the abriged version will do. I don't know if I completely agree that we should "Rethink Homeownership." I think rather than focusing on how americans view and understand homeownership we should focus on making americans financially literate. Homeowners got into trouble because they didn't fully understand the terms of aggreement for their loans nor realize that they simply couldn't afford it. (and the lenders took advantage of that fact)
ReplyDeleteWe need to give our communities the tools they need to protect themselves from predatory lending and to make informed decisions when deciding on such large purchases. Our communities need financial education. In my opinion, this is the best way to bring bak stability and prosperity while at the same time, empowering our communities.
I'm a fan for pushing the "Rethink Homeownership" plan. In the meantime, let me buy as many properties as possible so that I can rent them out. I'm figuring with California rates, I buy 10 properties, with an average monthly rent of 1500, mortgage on a 30 year note for a 250,000 house would run me near 1200 and 1400 per month. (This whole plan is assuming little or no variation on inflation in the rental housing market, which has actually not been the case with so many people damaging their credit, they are on the rise) With the additonal I make 1 or 2 k per month to store in the bank for any emergencies with the property and pay for majority of the taxes on the property. The real magic happens when I retire, mid 50's, mortgages paid off, my monthly income with a small assumed rise in inflation of 1% per year the income per property would be 1950 x 10 = 19k per month. Without question some of that will go to paying the meager taxes in California. Now thats what I call a retirement plan. Just my opinon.
ReplyDelete