Housing every family is a social justice issue in a capitalist economy. Beyond the traditionally charitable assistance of helping one another to meet some essential needs for individual well-being, housing needs must also be met as essential capital assets to ensure social justice. While the public is not responsible to house every person, individual housing needs cannot be met without some public assistance or leverage. Families were used to helping one another to have decent homes before financial engineering of the housing industry. Local housing marketplaces have evolved into leveraging one another through home mortgage loans in the United States. Therefore, public policy must ensure that every family has equitable access to local housing marketplaces to meet the essential need. Mortgage loans could be conceptualized as an invaluable communal strategy for the mutual benefits of leveraging one another to meet housing needs as capital resource assets. The housing finance system is helping families to improve their living conditions and build personal wealth. Every family deserves to be equitably leveraged to meet housing needs, but low-income households are inadvertently excluded from the communal strategy. The mutual benefits of the communal strategy are social justice issues, though commonly taken for granted or misunderstood even in the academics as well as policymakers.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Monday, May 29, 2017
The goal of a decent home as landed property for every American family in the Housing Act of 1949 cannot be achieved without nonprofit sector complementing the public policy in local housing marketplaces. Although housing is the first basic need to live and work in any community, the decision to invest or just rent as a consumer in local housing marketplaces is idiosyncratic. Every family in various communities in the United States should normally be interested to invest in landed property as capital asset irrespective of income level. Homeownership is the means for every family to increase net-worth and some measure of financial security. However, local housing marketplaces are not commonly conceptualized in terms of families investing in landed properties because of the general misunderstanding about periodic rents and mortgage payments. Many American families are not aware that public policy has inadvertently taken from their purview their property rights to meet housing needs as employees. Their responsibilities to invest, with some public assistance, in housing in their various communities for improved living conditions and family well-being are commonly overlooked. A book is being written for advocating how every family could get involved in various local communities as investors in housing.
The current public policy issue is not affordability in terms of costs but equitable distribution through local housing marketplaces to ensure social justice. Hence, many families are still homeless or occupy inadequate houses while some houses are left vacant and abandoned in cities across the United States. The housing needs of American families are not being synchronized with supply of houses in local housing marketplaces. Hence, low-income families are not empowered as investors in their local housing marketplaces. It will require innovative civic engagement by related nonprofit sector institutions to empower low-income families and complement public policy in local housing marketplaces. Hence, the book being written is advocating social change in form of voluntary network of existing and prospective homeowners collaborating as investors, irrespective of income level.
Low-income families require such collaboration to ensure effective management of equitable values of their landed properties for mutual benefits. While every family could be involved, the social change leadership requires some knowledge of real estate management and the nonprofit sector. There are invaluable mutual benefits in helping one another have decent homes with some measure of financial security though investing in local housing marketplaces. Every family can be involved since rent or monthly mortgage payment is the largest expense item of many families. It is the rational economic evolution of local housing marketplaces, though public policy has not evolved the same way due to inconsistent government interventions. Nevertheless, a family collaborating with others to invest as homeowner or potential homeowner in various communities is still in line with public policy.
It should be possible to carry along every family irrespective of income level. Otherwise, homeownership would become the engine for driving income inequality of the economy. The American dream of homeownership should not become morbid desires among low-income families to keep them perpetually dependent on public subsidies for standard living conditions. Low-income families need community-based nonprofit real estate management for homeownership as well as for building, preserving, and marketing their equitable values in landed properties as capital assets.
Inclusive homeownership promotion does not preclude commercial activities in local housing marketplaces. Rather, the scope of commercial activities are widened and tailored to meet the housing needs of American families or households in view of the expanding economic activities and social mobility. The goal is not to supplant profit incentives in the housing industry, but to channel those incentives for mutual benefits in local housing marketplaces. Community Housing Market Support Network (CHMNS) Inc is promoting this intellectual property through a book about “Housing Every American Family to Ensure Social Justice.” Check this published essay to gain some insights into the upcoming publication for social change http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jsc/vol9/iss1/12
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Every Home is Affordable
Every home is affordable. A house that is not affordable will not be built. The word, ‘affordable,’ tends to encourage misconception of public policy in the housing market. In line with the universal declaration of human rights, the goal of the Housing Act of 1949 in the United States has been for every American family to have a decent home. Every family or household needs only a decent home to live and work in any community. This makes home ownership the great equalizer. Local housing markets in communities across the United States are not intended to be commercial markets just for buying and selling of shelters or rental homes to live. A local housing market is part of real estate market in the community for families to invest in landed properties. There are various forms of public and private mortgage loans to leverage every family to invest in a home rather than public rental homes. Public housing in the United States is a legacy of the era of slum clearance. Renting a home to live is not the same as investing in a home one lives in. Rental homes are for various forms of leasehold arrangements in real estate markets; depending on housing needs. Public policy in local housing markets is to encourage every family to invest in, at least, a home to live and work in various communities. Encouraging home ownership curtails exploitation in decisions regarding its use; as well as it could prevent abusive use or poor maintenance.
However, public policy administration has created ambivalent dichotomous local housing markets in communities across the United States. Local housing markets now comprise of market rate and subsidized homes. Traditionally public housing was to provide decent transitional shelters for very poor people when the need for slum clearance was prevalent. It became misconstrued as affordable decent rental homes for low-income families by public policy makers and administrators. This has resulted in concentration of poverty, segregated projects, and neighborhood declines. Even worse, renting homes became confused with investing in homes. The misconception persisted even after housing needs were taken from employers’ purview by the Housing Act of 1949. While some contemporary programs use subsidies to enable low-income households buy below market prices, it is perceived as unsustainable taking away of affordable housing for low-income households (Byrne & Diamond, 2006). However, it is not taking away but encouraging low-income households to also invest in housing as real estate. The perception is a reflection of the common misconception about real estate markets that led to confusing renting homes with investing in homes. To complement public policy and avoid the perception of unsustainable taking away of affordable housing for low-income households, nonprofit community real estate management services are needed in local housing markets. It is the assistance needed by low-income households, investors, and many small-scale including absentee landlords. This is the focus of Community Housing Market Support Network Inc (CHMSN Inc.) in Louisville Kentucky.
Byrne, J. P. & Diamond, M. (2006). Affordable housing, land tenure, and urban policy: The matrix revealed. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 34, 2, pp. 527- 612.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
This is the preface of my book on this issue. I am advocating social change to complement public policy in local housing markets across the United States. Social change is needed in form of voluntary network of all-income-level investors collaborating to manage individual real estate for nonprofit mutual benefits in various local housing markets. Whereas attempt is made to write the book so that every family could understand how to get involved, it requires some knowledge of real estate management and the nonprofit sector to provide the social change leadership. It is about investing in local housing markets for the mutual benefits of helping one another to work and live comfortably in decent homes in various communities. Every family would normally want to be carried along to attain some measure of financial security since rent or monthly mortgage payment is the largest expense item of many families.
The housing needs of American families have been taken from the purview of employers of labor. Employees have to figure out how to invest to meet housing needs to improve the well-being and living conditions of their families. This book is written to help every family get involved in various local communities as investors in housing. Though housing is the first basic need to work and live in any community, the decision to participate as an investor or just a consumer is idiosyncratic. Every family could be given the opportunity to invest and become home owner through nonprofit real estate management in various communities. Although our politics remains divide-and-rule, economic issues about housing needs are two sides of the same coin. Every American family has right to adequate and decent housing as landed property.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Since a home is basic need commercial rental properties do not have to negate the goal of housing every American family irrespective of income level. Commercial interests have to tie home ownership to income levels to stimulate active participation of families in the investment activities and circulation of money in the communal leveraging efforts. There is no law specifying that a family must attain certain level of income to invest in home ownership since housing is basic human need. I pointed out in previous blogs that rental housing has always been a proportional part of every local housing market for leasehold arrangements among households. Since a home is basic need every family should normally seek to participate in the local housing market as an investor.
To ensure social justice, American families should not be inadvertently dispossessed of their property rights by commercial interests. That is, our public policy must continue to promote active participation of families in their local housing markets as investors. Home ownership is the great equalizer. With the expansion of commercial interests, home ownership could become morbid desires. At the same time, commercial interests continue to promote various forms of exploitative deals in equitable values of landed properties. Some scholars are already advocating re-thinking of home ownership disregarding the need to encourage families to invest their local housing markets. Community Housing Market Support Network Inc (CHMSN Inc.) is encouraging active participation in your local housing market as investors. Real estate is not a wasting asset. Its equitable value appreciates overtime if properly maintained.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
There are general misconceptions about home ownership and rental housing market that need clarification for successful maintenance and management of housing units as capital assets. The misconceptions are due to the paradox of housing as landed properties with respect to land tenure and land value. Every housing unit has to be developed and/or maintained at a unique location for considerable length of time or tenure. Also, though a housing unit depreciates with respect to its development costs overtime; its value overtime appreciates in terms of supply and demand. Although this depends on the changes in the community, the home owner has right to the equitable value for managing and maintaining the landed property overtime. All the characteristic features make a local housing market heterogeneous and monopolistic with respect to available housing units. Disregarding equitable rights of owners of landed properties has led to various misconceptions about home ownership and rental housing market in terms of buying and selling.
However, the legal system of possessing and using landed properties is outright purchase or leasing. Rental housing market is in fact leasehold housing market for various forms of arrangements among households to meet housing needs. That is, irrespective of income-level, a household could still choose leasehold arrangement to meet immediate housing need for shelter. This implies that vice-versa a household, irrespective of income-level, should be able to choose among a spectrum of leasehold arrangements up to home ownership to meet housing need since every household is being leveraged. Therefore, the relationship deserving nonprofit management attention is not capital value and rental value of landed properties, but capital value and equitable value of landed properties. Landed property owner should be free to market equitable value of landed property to encourage innovative and competitive leasehold arrangements among households.
Ideally, low income households could be leveraged indirectly through various innovative leasehold arrangements. To be equitably leveraged, families with low incomes only need nonprofit holding and management of the landed properties as capital assets in their local housing markets, not rental homes. However, the common understanding about local housing market is a particular community or neighborhood where one could either rent or own a home. People do not commonly think of local housing market as a local environment where various housing needs could be met as landed property rights are sold and purchased to work and live in the housing community. In view of the general misconception, renting a home is equated to permanent housing. This has led to thinking that some households need subsidies to gain access into their local housing market either because their incomes are too low or because housing prices/rents are too high. Consequently, a local housing market is thought to comprise of market rate and subsidized housing. The ambivalent conceptualization is currently preventing efficient local housing markets in various cities in the United States. Community Housing Market Support Network Inc (CHMSN Inc.) is a nonprofit institution set up to address the misconceptions in Louisville metro housing market.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Home Ownership is a Legitimate Aspiration of Every American Family
Last week, I pointed out that the declared goal in the Housing Act of 1949 is for every American family to be able to have a decent home in a suitable living environment. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the Housing Act of 1949 effectively moved housing needs from employer-employee concern to public-private concern. It would not have been necessary to continue tying housing needs to income levels. However, outside coercion or voluntary participation, commercial interest with income as common denomination is the only communal means to house every family. Commercial institutions had to tie investments to meet housing needs to income and credit worthiness to ensure reasonable contributions and active participation in the communal leveraging efforts. Conceptually, mortgage payments are periodic investments for acquisition of equitable property rights at particular location in line with American philosophy of home ownership as the great equalizer. The owner of the equitable property rights is responsible for managing the development, use, value, and tenure as landed properties. Thus, a decent home in a suitable living environment is a capital asset that the owner could sell or transfer if the living arrangement changed.
It is necessary to further clarify the public policy goal in the Housing Act of 1949 in light of the foregoing conceptual explanation of home ownership mortgage. Reasonably, it could be inferred from the declaration in the Housing Act that public policy in the housing market is to ensure that every household is equitably leveraged. However, the Housing Act was not enacted to reflect that goal. Hence, Hoffman (2000) considered the Housing Act of 1949 a study in contradictions and its programs as failures. To gain access into a local housing market as a matter of social justice requires resolution of many related public policy issues at the local level because of the nature of housing as landed property. Apart from land use and land development planning issues, there are ownership legal and social issues as well as the underlying societal issue of income distribution for ensuring equitable transactions among households. Also, there are building-code issues for durability, maintenance, and betterment or future improvements as capital assets. Hence, the public policy of housing every American family as soon as possible in the Housing Act was appropriately declared as a general goal rather than specific objective for implementation programs.
Furthermore, due to historical and political evolution in the United States, the social issue of racial discrimination in the local housing market quickly dominated the public policy. Some of the issues had to be addressed by regulations without understanding how the local housing market could be impacted. Although the Fair Housing of 1968 is to ensure social justice, affordability remains an issue. While it is still reasonable to assume that public policy in the housing market is equitable leveraging of every family, there is need for active participation by every family. Every American family should be able to invest to acquire decent housing as capital asset for improved living condition in a local housing market. In other words, irrespective of income level or credit worthiness, every American family should be able to have landed property rights in form of a decent home in a suitable living environment to ensure social justice. Housing is part of community economic development. Today, homelessness in any community in the United States is an aberration. Housing need has been taken from employer-employee to public-private concern.
However, every local housing market needs social entrepreneurial roles of nonprofit sector institutions to make the market more efficient. Community Housing Market Support Network Inc (CHMSN Inc.) is a nonprofit institution set up for that purpose in Louisville metro Kentucky. Such organization is indispensable because there are many areas of misconception in the housing market that cannot be addressed by rules and regulations as public administrators are often tempted to think. There will be subsequent discussions about such misconceptions.
Hoffman, A. (2000). A study in contradictions: The origins and legacy of the Housing Act of 1949. Housing Policy Debate 11, 2, pp. 299 – 326.