Today, I discovered this video, done by a graduate student, explaining the crisis.

It is the best explanation that I’ve seen.

For more information on Jonathan, check out his website.

The San Francisco Chronicle wrote an article about the report’s findings.  I must say that I am impressed with the different ways the report said that communities are using the funds, however, some of them can still be problematic.  Let’s take them one by one.

-Purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed homes to be used for low-income housing: Before any money should be allocated to purchasing and rehabbing homes for low income families, I want to know where these homes are located.  Are these home in the far out suburbs where the nearest Food Lion is 10 miles away, and families need to have cars to get anywhere? Are these homes that were build on the edges of towns where the land was cheap and vulnerable homeowners were promised that commercial businesses and other developments would follow them out there? 

I wonder if these homes are near dependable public transit? Are these homes near good jobs, schools, day care, grocery stores? If they aren’t then they are useless, and shouldn’t be marketed to low income families.  Without good support services, housing a family in the middle of nowhere is stupid.

-Assisting low-income buyers with home financing: I’m about to say something controversial, and I hope you still like me when I’ve said it.  Everyone does not need to be a homeowner.  I understand that down payments, closing costs and other fees that must be paid upfront are what is keeping us from buying into the American dream, but for others of us, we just flat out don’t make enough money to be homeowners.  Unless our monthly mortgage payments are subsidized, we would never be able to afford a home.  (Maybe this is what this program does, I don’t know for sure).

If this program is subsidizing mortgage payments, and is allowing low income families to own property in nice, attractive, desirable neighborhoods in good school districts, with adequate support services, then I think this is an awesome program.  But if this program will likely turn into a revolving door of residents who can’t afford their mortgages because have bitten off more than they can chew, then I think it is unduly setting people up to fail.

-Redeveloping foreclosed properties and vacant land for other purposes: I love this idea.  I believe that many of the foreclosed properties (I’m imagining those cul de sac developments on the edge of town, in sprawling metropolis with no sense of community) shouldn’t have been built in the first place.  At the very least, commercial districts and greenspace could be included to simulate a village environment.

-Demolition of blighted structures: I’m imaging neighborhoods that I driven through in inner city Atlanta when I visit my little sister in college.  I see block after block of blighted, empty, boarded up, unattractive, condemnable homes.  I remember thinking (and likely saying out loud) that the city should move all the people out and blow up this neighborhood. Sometimes there are very few or no redeemable qualities about a neighborhood, and the best thing is to get rid of everything and start over or return simply it to nature.  Also see my Shrinking Cities article.

-Buying and holding foreclosed properties for later rehab or redevelopment: One question. So what do these neighborhoods look like in the meantime? A war zone? Who maintains these properties in the interim to insure that neighbors who stick around aren’t left with declining home values?

Bottom line people: Think about the best interests of the people you are serving and be aware of unintended consequences.  Just because there is lots of housing available doesn’t mean it’s the right kind of housing for low income families. Just because a solution solves a problem doesn’t mean it doesn’t make another problem worse.