|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So i was reading an article in Backwoods Home magazine and thought it made a lot of sense. An interesting way to deal with the housing market so messed up with people loosing houses and so many cheap houses in bank hands is for the gov to buy some of them and try a modern version of homesteading. Let folks apply to take one of these houses and if they live there and keep it in proper shape for 5 years they can keep it. Maybe with some small cost and maybe a contract to not sell for X years. People take better care of something they own than what they rent so we will have houses cared for instead of being empty bank owned squats and drug dens or rental property rotting with inhabitants that don't give a damn about it. Since a fair amount of people that would be able to use this program are already getting subsidized rent the cost would be low. What do you think?
Are they internet equipped?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those vacant properties tend to be concentrated in economically depressed areas, like cities in the Rust Belt. Wouldn't this plan just result in a migration of poor, largely unemployed people into these regions, further diluting the labor markets and exascerbating the problems those cities are already facing?
Can they eat the massive, subsidized corn surplus too?
|
|
And there are still landlords who aren't ultra rich or greedy corporations, there are home owners who want / need to sell their homes.
A homesteading plan as suggested will probably spell ruin to them.
Some, there will still be plenty that cannot qualify for my idea that will rent or prefer to rent. I do not many but slum lords hurt by this.
|
|
Those vacant properties tend to be concentrated in economically depressed areas, like cities in the Rust Belt. Wouldn't this plan just result in a migration of poor, largely unemployed people into these regions, further diluting the labor markets and exascerbating the problems those cities are already facing?
Are you kidding? Here in MI they are spread out everywhere. Sure there are more in the larger cities but they are already mostly concentrated poor, but also many in small towns. A LOT of small town folks lost jobs and houses putting many in bank hands and with banks afraid to mortgage to folks that want those houses they remain empty for some time. Also i would push to make employment one of the factors, even if at a low income because the point is to get people off the need for constant gov help, not relocate the mailbox for the gov checks
|
|
Are you kidding? Here in MI they are spread out everywhere. Sure there are more in the larger cities but they are already mostly concentrated poor, but also many in small towns. A LOT of small town folks lost jobs and houses putting many in bank hands and with banks afraid to mortgage to folks that want those houses they remain empty for some time. Also i would push to make employment one of the factors, even if at a low income because the point is to get people off the need for constant gov help, not relocate the mailbox for the gov checksSo what you're saying is that you want the government to subsidize a bunch of people immigrating to Michigan?
Not really i would like more out but housing more of the ones already here into permanent houses they will care for is better than increasing renter populations and letting fine houses rot.
|
Some, there will still be plenty that cannot qualify for my idea that will rent or prefer to rent. I do not many but slum lords hurt by this.And there are still landlords who aren't ultra rich or greedy corporations, there are home owners who want / need to sell their homes.
A homesteading plan as suggested will probably spell ruin to them.
Well, those some are just out of luck then, I guess...
And do your really think a program like this would not affect the prices for the lower categorie of houses and appartments at large, just because not everyone (or even not too many) qualifies for the program?