Homeless and Empty Homes -- an American Travesty

[orogenicman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-skip-bronson/post_733_b_692546.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=082410&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry

About 3.5 million US residents (about 1% of the population), including 1.35 million children, have been homeless for a significant period of time. Over 37,000 homeless individuals (including 16,000 children) stay in shelters in New York every night. This information was gathered by the Urban Institute, but actual numbers might be higher.

Fox Business estimates, there are 18.9 million vacant homes across the country.

3.5 million people without homes; 18.9 million homes without residents.

While an array of legal and logistical obstacles present themselves, the math is staggering. It's time to sort out the regulations and rates that would facilitate the solution: turning empty houses into homes for those in need.

While subprime loans have justly captured much of the ink as the culprit, overdevelopment is a major factor in the dramatic number of vacancies there are today. These are not just the homes of people who took on a mortgage they couldn't afford; these are newly constructed houses without a buyer on the horizon. It's not about taking a residence from someone who can't pay his or her bills and giving it to another person who can't make payments either, it's about using resources we have in excess.

I've been in real estate development for quite some time, enough to know that regardless of which political party is in charge, the market will follow the same cycle: demand, saturation and then glut. A suburb will start to attract homeowners, developers will react by building new homes in that area, and inevitably the supply will far outpace the demand. I've seen it happen time and time again. Usually the cycle ends through absorption, after a lull the homes are eventually sold and the train starts rolling again. However, with the current economic climate, we appear poised to remain in the glut portion of the cycle for an inordinate amount of time.

Houses are unlike most products; they generally don't depreciate with time and use. A house will not suffer from wear and tear the way a car will. Actually, the opposite is true. An empty residence will quickly go to seed. If you lived in a neighborhood with an abandoned house you'll know what I mean. Without someone to take care of it, a property will decline steeply. But with someone living in the house...actually taking care of them...well, that's a far better situation. No one benefits from an empty house.

I'm not advocating giving houses away -- such a move would create a host of political and fiscal problems -- but government should be working toward a solution to match up the empty homes with those who need a roof to live under.

A homeless population equivalent to the size of Los Angeles is unacceptable, and with over five times as many empty houses, we have not only a moral obligation but also an economic imperative to come up with a creative way to fix this travesty.

 

[asur]

Obama policies are putting people out of homes, so forget about that sector.

This is just more of the Obama crap that is harming America.
When homes drop in value, stocks drop and more job losses are guaranteed to
come. Then we see more Homeless people and Obama smiles!


NEW YORK (AP) -- Stocks fell for a fourth day after another disappointing report on housing deepened worries that the economic recovery could be fading. Bond yields fell as investors sought out more stable investments.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 134 points Tuesday following news that sales of previously occupied homes fell last month to their lowest level in 15 years. The 27 percent drop in home sales from the previous month was the biggest since record-keeping began in 1968.

 

[Gipper]

Obama policies are putting people out of homes, so forget about that sector.

This is just more of the Obama crap that is harming America.
When homes drop in value, stocks drop and more job losses are guaranteed to
come. Then we see more Homeless people and Obama smiles!


NEW YORK (AP) -- Stocks fell for a fourth day after another disappointing report on housing deepened worries that the economic recovery could be fading. Bond yields fell as investors sought out more stable investments.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 134 points Tuesday following news that sales of previously occupied homes fell last month to their lowest level in 15 years. The 27 percent drop in home sales from the previous month was the biggest since record-keeping began in 1968.

Yes no doubt. And libs think things are just great.

These links on Drudge now...

• BIDEN: 'We're moving in right direction'...
• Worries about recovery deepen...
• 'Hindenburg Omen' creator exits stock market...
• Economy in 'Depression, Not Recession'...
• Dow Faces 'Bouncy Ride to 5,000'...
• Typical Slow Summer -- or Something Darker?
• Drop in Home Sales Renews Pricing Fears...
• Investors Scatter to Safety...

Where have you been Asur?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Obama policies are putting people out of homes, so forget about that sector.

This is just more of the Obama crap that is harming America.
When homes drop in value, stocks drop and more job losses are guaranteed to
come. Then we see more Homeless people and Obama smiles!


NEW YORK (AP) -- Stocks fell for a fourth day after another disappointing report on housing deepened worries that the economic recovery could be fading. Bond yields fell as investors sought out more stable investments.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 134 points Tuesday following news that sales of previously occupied homes fell last month to their lowest level in 15 years. The 27 percent drop in home sales from the previous month was the biggest since record-keeping began in 1968.

so much mindless crap...but at least you just said we are in a recovery...to bad could not say that when W was in office...when it was getting worse and worse and worse and worse.....

 

[orogenicman]

I noticed that no one here actually addressed the issues raised by the article. Anyone care to take a stab at it? Anyone care to address the morality of so many homeless people in this country while we have such a huge glut of unoccupide homes? Are the banks at fault? The government? Wallstreet? All the above? None of the Above?

 

[Pandora]

I noticed that no one here actually addressed the issues raised by the article. Anyone care to take a stab at it? Anyone care to address the morality of so many homeless people in this country while we have such a huge glut of unoccupide homes? Are the banks at fault? The government? Wallstreet? All the above? None of the Above?

Everyone is at fault.


Many people, some of them are my family members had houses built that they could not afford yet did it anyways. Greed on their part.

Banks lent them the money to build knowing if they could not pay the house would go in default and return back to them. But in all fairness, had the banks not lent ACORN would be protesting at their doors accusing them of discrimination of one type or another.

obama and his administration is at fault for telling people he would help but really at least for a dozen people i know the help never came so the people kept holding on in some cases putting money they did not have into a house they could not afford just to lose it, and in other cases not putting any money into their house because the government promised help was coming so they used the money in other areas.

the price of houses are going to have to come down drastically. People are going to have to start living within their means, banks are going to have to be more responsible on who they loan money to and the government is going to have to stop giving or should I say promising bail outs to everyone and their brothers.

 

[BigRob]

so much mindless crap...but at least you just said we are in a recovery...to bad could not say that when W was in office...when it was getting worse and worse and worse and worse.....

Obama sure has done a good job of getting that turned around huh?

 

[BigRob]

I noticed that no one here actually addressed the issues raised by the article. Anyone care to take a stab at it? Anyone care to address the morality of so many homeless people in this country while we have such a huge glut of unoccupide homes? Are the banks at fault? The government? Wallstreet? All the above? None of the Above?

Just because there are homeless people and unoccupied homes, it does not really equate to a "moral" problem in my opinion.

 

[orogenicman]

Just because there are homeless people and unoccupied homes, it does not really equate to a "moral" problem in my opinion.

You see no obvious solution to the following fact?

3.5 million people without homes; 18.9 million homes without residents.

 

[BigRob]

You see no obvious solution to the following fact?

3.5 million people without homes; 18.9 million homes without residents.

Not unless you are prepared to start handing out free houses to people who will be unable to upkeep them anyway. All it will amount to is yet another massive government give away and spending program. And, if people knew they could lose their house and be given a free one to live in, how many more people would simply walk away from their mortgage and demand a new house?

I would not be in favor of such a program.

 

[GenSeneca]

Not unless you are prepared to start handing out free houses to people who will be unable to upkeep them anyway. All it will amount to is yet another massive government give away and spending program. And, if people knew they could lose their house and be given a free one to live in, how many more people would simply walk away from their mortgage and demand a new house?

I would not be in favor of such a program.

As is common, we are in complete agreement. There is no obligation, moral or otherwise, for such a program to be put in place.

What % of the homeless are drug addicts and/or alcoholics?
How many of them have a mental illness?

The idea that homeless people are all just average folks caught up in a bad situation is the rare exception, not the rule. If you were to lose your job tomorrow and could not afford to remain in your home, would you end up on the street? Most likely not.

You have friends, family, people who would be willing to help you out while you got back on your feet. Now consider how terrible your actions would have to be that every single friend and relative would turn you away and leave you on the street to fend for yourself.

Bad decisions have consequences and attempts to perpetually protect people from the consequences of their bad decisions is not moral, it is foolish.

 

[Gipper]

As is common, we are in complete agreement. There is no obligation, moral or otherwise, for such a program to be put in place.

What % of the homeless are drug addicts and/or alcoholics?
How many of them have a mental illness?

The idea that homeless people are all just average folks caught up in a bad situation is the rare exception, not the rule. If you were to lose your job tomorrow and could not afford to remain in your home, would you end up on the street? Most likely not.

You have friends, family, people who would be willing to help you out while you got back on your feet. Now consider how terrible your actions would have to be that every single friend and relative would turn you away and leave you on the street to fend for yourself.

Bad decisions have consequences and attempts to perpetually protect people from the consequences of their bad decisions is not moral, it is foolish.

How can this be?

Libs are taught from birth that many Americans are one pay check away from homelessness.

That brainwashing is very difficult to fix.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How can this be?

Perhaps liberals are people with no friends willing to help them, and who have been disowned by their families?

I have no concrete evidence that this is so, not for every case at least. I'm just guessing here, in an attempt to try to clear up the mystery.

Just trying to help.