You say you support generally government interest in promoting homeownership. As one who has been economically harmed (soaring rents) and ultimately displaced by rising neighborhood homeownership [---> rising rents], I note that government is taking sides, choosing winners and losers, and you should especially understand the issues that entails. (What, it’s okay in homeownership but not in healthcare?)

I lived in the same community almost 30 years, and in the same house for 15 years. Before that, profit-seeking landlords kept pricving me out every year or two. So clearly I did not *choose* to be transient.

What protection is there for renters want tgyo stay put and make community?

I go so far as to say that renters are *negative stakeholders* in their community: as my community prospered, I became gradually worse and worse off. (Why? Because as the community prospered, home prices and rents soared, depleting more and more of my meager income every year or two.) Generally, a community’s rising tide does not lift the boats of renters, whose upward redistribution of income (to their landlords) is accelerated.

Let me ask you this: When a zoning decision concerning apartment development is to be made, and opinions from the community are considered, whose opinion (if anyone’s) should be given greater consideration: a 25-year renter who wants to buy a home and stay, or a homeowner who arrived six months ago from another state? I ask because I was on the losing side of such an issue.

Now I have no marketable skills, and no money with which to return to school. And I’m too old to be taken seriously as an applicant for an apprenticeship. So I’m not seeing a lot I can do to lift my boat.

“It’s not a given that everyone who wants a home *should* be able to buy one, nor is it the gov’s job to see that it happens (as what has happened with the real estate bubble) without regard to the realities of who is borrowing the money.”

Au contraire, I believe that everyone who wants a home *should* be able to buy one in the size they can afford, and that government should stay out of artificial size restrictions which allow only unaffordable (and thereby unattainable) options.

I’m specifically NOT saying that anyone should be able to buy a home they can’t afford; only that government needs to stop with the housing mandates (size etc) which make homes unaffordable.

Shouldn’t low-income people have the OPTION of buying real homes in sizes they can afford?

All I can afford is a 400-sf home on a 2,000-sf piece of land.

Shouldn’t I have that option? Especially when the lack of the option often leads to lifetime penury.

Regarding home ownership, this is one of the rare situations where I do believe the gov has some interest in promoting individual private home ownership (that includes condos and co-ops). People who own homes are generally community makers. They generally stay in the same community for long periods of time. Thus, they have a vested interest in the long term health and prosperity of the community. Renters as a group (yes I know there are long term renters) are more transient. Since they can (and often do) move at anytime they have less of a stake in the community than those who’s lives are physically rooted there via home ownership. I know that’s a broad-brush statement and I’m sure you, Rick etc can toss out many examples of that not being the case. But if you look at the overall sides of home owners vs. renters you’ll see it holds true.

Regarding your comments on economic growth and jobs, I have to toss the ball make to the unskilled worker. At some point in life you as an adult have to wale up and smell the coffee. IOW, get yourself some kind of training or gather all the experience you can from work and try to move at least a bit up in the economic world. There are all kinds of excuses why someone first gets into a low paying unskilled job and stays there for 30-40 years. Some may be valid explanations. But not justifications. There’s an old saying: “A rising tide lifts all ships.” But if you’re sitting on a brick you’re not going to rise.

As for your comments on Obama and healthcare, sounds like you agree with me. Thanks.

Have you noticed promoters saying things lately which are technically true but misleading?

Sebelius got my attention last week saying somnething – I forget what – technically true but misleading.

Now Obama has gotten on that same train…

He said there is no mandate in the bill to cover abortions. Of course not, his Health Choice Commissioner (another czar?) will ensure that abortions are covered.

And he also said that the bill does not provide health insurance to illegal aliens. That also is true, but illegal aliens will still get health care and taxpayers will pay for it.

Did you see the clip of McCaskill’s town hall meeting where she listened to the crowd…”What?…You don’t trust me?”

Yes, millions of Americans don’t trust Congress, they don’t trust Obama, they don’t trust the anonymous people writing the bill, and they certainly don’t trust people like Ezekiel Emanuel anywhere near health care policy.

You said:

“That’s the problem with liberals. Can’t think more than one step ahead. That’s why they don’t make good chess players.”

Check out my multi-step reasoning that economic expansion is bad for unskilled workers:

1) economic expansion/job growth leads to greater household formation (e.g. unemployed twentysomething living with parents gets a job and rents his own pad)

2) unskilled workers are generally passed over for promotion in favor of skilled workers

3) economic boom does little to increase low-end wages since a surplus of unskilled workjers exists

3) greater household formation leads to increased renbtal occupancy

4) increased rental occupancy reduces rental vacancy rates

5) reduction in rental vacancy rates leads to higher rents

6) higher rents + sluggish low-end wages make unskilled workers worse off than they were before the economy expanded

p.s. i played chess in high school

You said:

“If the American Dream no longer includes owning your own home then it isn’t fair (so the pols will say) that some people can deduct part of their living expenses (i.e. mortgage interest) while others (renters) can’t deduct anything.”

As someone with no hope of buying a home, I have been saying as much for decades: it’s not fair, it distorts the market, it distorts policy (ultimately making policy even more unfair to renters), and repealing the unfairness is long overdue.

In Michigan – where I lived for some years – the school property tax rate on rental property is four times the rate on owner-occupied primary residences. Now tell me how fair that is, and how badly it distorts home and rental prices.

p.s. in the context of all this homeownerist unfairness to renters, i was not at all surprised when congress voted a homeowner bailout…and nobody else should have been surprised either.