Neighbor evicted

[RosieTR]

One of our neighbors a few houses away has obviously been evicted. I don't know what they did wrong, since they've owned the house for over 10 years. I'm guessing a bad refi? Anyway, their stuff is on the driveway and their next-door neighbor is letting them plug in their camper for power, and they are staying in that, for the moment. I feel bad for them-we don't have a lot in common but they aren't bad people. Maybe slight hoarding tendencies but we've spoken to them and know their names. I am wondering if I should do anything? It seems awkward to knock on the door of their camper and give them stuff (like food) but ignoring the whole situation seems weird too. Any suggestions?

[redfox]

Yes, offer food. This is horrible. No one should lose their housing. <sigh> housing for profit is such a bad idea...

[Lainey]

I wonder if the next-door neighbor or other neighbors can fill in the blanks on their situation. But in the meantime, yes, maybe a gift card to Target or similar store could help them purchase some necessities.

Good on you for showing compassion in these tough times.

[CathyA]

I think food would be fine. How kind of you. They are lucky to at least have a camper to stay in for the time being.

[catherine]

I think food would be fine. How kind of you. They are lucky to at least have a camper to stay in for the time being.

+1

[catherine]

Yes, offer food. This is horrible. No one should lose their housing. <sigh> housing for profit is such a bad idea...

redfox, this is clearly a thread hijack, but can you give me your thoughts on how housing can be provided without some kind of money exchange?

As far as "no one should lose their housing"--well, people do, and I can speak from the vantage point of having lost my home through foreclosure. I can also speak from the vantage point of having a squatter tenant in the house we had been renting out only until we could find a buyer. The "tenant" was not on the lease, but she remained after the main tenants left--they had rented out a room to her. She called us and said she had nowhere to go, could she stay for another month. My DH, kind-hearted soul, said, yes, we don't want to kick you out.. well, months and thousands of dollars later, we finally got her to leave, but I have to say, it is amazing how many more rights the tenant has over the owner--and she wasn't even a legal tenant!! My husband was told to stay off his own property until they could straighten it out.

So, again, not to diminish the unfortunate situation in the OPs post, and not without compassion for people who lose their homes, but I don't think anyone is "entitled" to a home that they can't keep up--and I include myself in that. If I hadn't been kicked out my house in New York, I never would have wound up in this wonderful community in New Jersey.

[redfox]

redfox, this is clearly a thread hijack, but can you give me your thoughts on how housing can be provided without some kind of money exchange?

As far as "no one should lose their housing"--well, people do, and I can speak from the vantage point of having lost my home through foreclosure. I can also speak from the vantage point of having a squatter tenant in the house we had been renting out only until we could find a buyer. The "tenant" was not on the lease, but she remained after the main tenants left--they had rented out a room to her. She called us and said she had nowhere to go, could she stay for another month. My DH, kind-hearted soul, said, yes, we don't want to kick you out.. well, months and thousands of dollars later, we finally got her to leave, but I have to say, it is amazing how many more rights the tenant has over the owner--and she wasn't even a legal tenant!! My husband was told to stay off his own property until they could straighten it out.

So, again, not to diminish the unfortunate situation in the OPs post, and not without compassion for people who lose their homes, but I don't think anyone is "entitled" to a home that they can't keep up--and I include myself in that. If I hadn't been kicked out my house in New York, I never would have wound up in this wonderful community in New Jersey.

Hi Catherine... Thanks for asking about this! And, whoever is the Mod here (I don't think it's me!), feel free to suggest a move for this.

My core value regarding housing is this: housing is a basic human need, along with food, water, medical care & education. I believe that basic human needs must be available and accessible to everybody. As such, I don't think solely using the private, for-profit markets to trade in these needs is logical, humane, or even successful. (I do think the private, for-profit markets are useful for other transactions.)

Note that I said housing should not be sold for profit in my original response, not that a money exchange cannot occur. Money is a symbol of value, and housing can - and is - bought & sold using money as the medium of exchange, but not for profit. The model I love the most is the community land trust model. This is a limited equity model. The philosophical stance of the non-profit CLT model & movement is that housing is a community resource and basic human right. As such, homes are bought on the open for-profit market often, but not always, with a public subsidy, and sold to income qualified buyers. The subsidy is a one-time investment, and stays with the home over the course of its useful life, which is, on average, seven familes. So, rather than public $$ being pocketed for private gain, it benefits many families.

The land under the home is owned by the CLT & leased back to the householder, also called a Leaseholder. The Leaseholder owns the home, or the now-affordable mortgage to the home, and must comply with all payment agreements. In addition, the leaseholder must maintain the home, as it is a community resource. When the leaseholder sells their interest in the home, they sell according to a limited equity formula that was in their original contract, and the CLT is party to the sale, as they own title to the land. This is a way to manage re-sale, as well as keep the house affordable. It's sold to another income-qualified buyer.

The leaseholder must be of moderate income to qualify; usually around 80% of area median income (AMI), and able to qualify for a mortgage on the value of the dwelling, not including the land. The leaseholder can become a millionaire the day after they move in, they are not limited in their ability to build wealth & still qualify to be in their home. They simply cannot sell their home for profit, or use it to speculate & attempt to build wealth with it. The home is inheritable also. The market for limited equity homes is a different market than those in the for-profit market. A CLT Leaseholder cannot take out a second mortgage without the CLT organization signing off on it.

The foreclosure rate of CLT homes across the country is cited as being .52% country-wide. The resilience & stability of limited equity homes is high. When someone loses a home to foreclosure, that is certainly due to unforeseen economic circumstances, largely based upon a highly inflated, speculative market. It is devastating to families, and they often take years to recover. I find speculating in real estate to be unsavory at best, and unethical to criminal at its worst. We do all have the right to safe and secure dwellings. Having a system in place that denies this right to so many is simply indefensible in my view.

Here is the link to the National Community Land Trust Network, as well as the links to the two CLT's I have been involved with. I was on the founding board of the first CLT in WA state, on Lopez island, and built a home in the first project, Morgantown. I also worked for the Seattle CLT, a few years ago.

www.cltnetwork.org (http://www.cltnetwork.org)
www.lopezclt.org (http://www.lopezclt.org)
www.homesteadclt.org (http://www.homesteadclt.org)

[catherine]

Thanks so much, redfox... and I totally am on board with what you are saying. As a matter of fact, my son bought his home through the Burlington, VT Land Trust, in exactly the manner you described. He felt SO LUCKY. He works at the Community College of VT and doesn't make a bundle (far from it), and if he had had to find a home through a traditional route, he never would have been able to afford a home.

And the house is adorable!!! It was gutted and redone on the interior before he moved in. Bernie Sanders actually had a photo op in his living room before he got the house, it was such a good example of what the program can offer. My son is currently is in the process of creating a screen printing of the house to give to the Land Trust--in appreciation for what they have done for him.

So I completely agree with you. It's a great model.

[redfox]

Burlington LT is the Grandmother of the CLT movement in the US! How awesome that he benefits from this great organization. I want to clarify that I do believe there is room for a small for-profit housing market. My preference would be that the majority of homes sold in this country were in the limited equity market, so that all may be housed.

[catherine]

I found this press release.. if this is my son's house, which I believe it is from the description, I didn't realize it was the 500th house!


Burlington, Vermont – The Champlain Housing Trust marked the addition of the 500th home into its innovative shared‐equity homeownership program, the largest of its type in the country. The program provides permanently affordable homeownership opportunity for low to moderate income households in northwestern Vermont.
At the home on North Champlain Street in Burlington’s Old North End, dozens of people gathered to celebrate the milestone. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who was Mayor of Burlington when the program was formed, offered words of praise and encouragement to the staff, Board, homeowners, state and local officials assembled at the home.
“One of my proudest achievements as mayor of Burlington was starting the first municipally‐funded community land trust in the nation. It's hard to believe now,” said Senator Sanders, “but 25 years ago it was considered a ‘radical’ idea to create homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income Vermonters by taking land off the speculative market, and to require housing developed with government subsidies to remain affordable in perpetuity. Five hundred homes later, the Champlain Housing Trust has proven that the land trust model works. That is an incredible accomplishment that we should all be proud of.”

OK, now back to the topic at hand.

[iris lily]

Burlington LT is the Grandmother of the CLT movement in the US! How awesome that he benefits from this great organization. I want to clarify that I do believe there is room for a small for-profit housing market. My preference would be that the majority of homes sold in this country were in the limited equity market, so that all may be housed.

In your model persons of modest means would not be able to put in sweat equity to improve their own house and realize financial gain, is that right?

Certainly fixing up a house and reselling it is morally repugnant to you in the scenario, got it.

I have to ask you, as someone who is married to a guy who builds staircases for a living: should house have new staircases? Should he make money doing that? If a gut rehab house needs a new staircase, should he get paid at all for building it? Will the taxpayers pay your DH in this scenario as a public subsidy?

[redfox]

In your model persons of modest means would not be able to put in sweat equity to improve their own house and realize financial gain, is that right?

Certainly fixing up a house and reselling it is morally repugnant to you in the scenario, got it.

I have to ask you, as someone who is married to a guy who builds staircases for a living: should house have new staircases? Should he make money doing that? If a gut rehab house needs a new staircase, should he get paid at all for building it? Will the taxpayers pay your DH in this scenario as a public subsidy?

In this model, a very limited amount of equity is allowed. The formula varies from market to market, to meet the goal of providing affordable home ownership for those at about 80% AMI. The homes sold are already in good repair in my experience, and the leaseholder is expected to maintain this.

The subsidy is generally applied to write down the cost of the home, depending upon the area & the available subsidies, and is essentially used to purchase the land & be held in trust in perpetuity. The cost of the land is seperated from the cost of the dwelling so the leaseholder need finance only the dwelling. The subsidy is thus a one time investment per home, to keep it eternally affordable, bought & sold in the limited equity market.

I do think there is room for several types of real estate markets. I participate in the private, for profit market, though quite reluctantly. My first home was a limited equity CLT home. When my DH & I needed to buy a home to get custody of his kids, there were no limited equity options in Seattle, so we bought on the private market. We both would have much preferred a CLT home.

My staircase guy builds high end custom staircases for those who have not noticed the recession. The clients of that business are quite wealthy, so yes, they may very well be spending their tax free --subsidized by middle class taxpayers -- wealth on staircases.

[Alan]

My staircase guy builds high end custom staircases for those who have not noticed the recession. The clients of that business are quite wealthy, so yes, they may very well be spending their tax free --subsidized by middle class taxpayers -- wealth on staircases.
It's not fair that those wealthy folks are buying high end items with our money. The very idea of employing high end staircase makers with money that should be in the hands of people with little or no use of high end staircases is offensive. We should create a luxury tax on high end staircases and effectively destroy the industry. :+1:

[dmc]

It's not fair that those wealthy folks are buying high end items with our money. The very idea of employing high end staircase makers with money that should be in the hands of people with little or no use of high end staircases is offensive. We should create a luxury tax on high end staircases and effectively destroy the industry. :+1:

I'm doing my part, I quit working years ago and now pay much less in taxes. I never realized I was funding wealthy staircase owners.

[larknm]

I'm with Alan on this one, though I don't know what LogicalProgression is.

[SteveinMN]

I'm with Alan on this one, though I don't know what LogicalProgression is.
LogicalProgression is a term that describes the thought pattern that Alan believes people follow once they accept the basic tenets of CLT.

[Alan]

LogicalProgression is a term that describes the thought pattern that Alan believes people follow once they accept the basic tenets of CLT.
Nope, LogicalProgression (as I used it) describes the thought pattern many people follow once they decide that other's wealth rightly belongs to, or is subsidized by, everyone else. And, history has shown that once that happens, some talisman of conspicuous consumption is identified and then subjected to a luxury tax in order to punish the evil doer. In recent years, we've seen it happen with yacht's and corporate aircraft, nearly destryoing the industries.

Next time, in order to appease the masses, it may be high end staircases. ;)

[RosieTR]

Interesting hijack. I cannot say I'm totally against people owning and selling homes although the stuff that went on during the housing boom was deplorable. I know firsthand about some of that, since we have a house in Phoenix. Among other issues, we got offers as late as Dec of 2008, well after the bust had started, to refinance to take 20-30% of our newly purchased home's value. We certainly made a big mistake buying in the first place, but I was thankfully not stupid enough to take the offer. We also saw plenty of signs about 100% financing, creative loans, etc. This is 2008 and beyond.
As for our soon-to-be-no-longer-neighbors, I think they refi'd or did something else very strange. They had owned the place longer than DH, who bought in 1998. So I'm thinking they took a LOT of equity out, spent it on who-knows-what, then maybe lost a job or something. We've owned this house all through our sojourn in Phoenix, and I have monitored the value. It was never the boom and bust of other markets so I don't know how they got themselves down the hole. We're not super-close to them but have briefly chatted when we're walking the dog or whatever, so I don't know the details. But if you own a house for 15+ years, you would think you'd sell it or even short-sale it if you could. A few other houses have gone into foreclosure here and there, but usually not people who've been around a long time.
Anyway, I don't think that owning a house is a right, but do think there should be opportunities available to help people who have shown themselves responsible, even if they aren't high earners. It does make for a more balanced society to have people at different levels of socioeconomic status interacting in various ways such as in a neighborhood. OTOH, if people don't take ownership of something they tend to care for it far less so ways to have folks put some skin in the game but not shoulder the entire burden often work well. Some, including me, would argue that this was one of the major problems that led to the housing boom and subsequent bust: banks had no, or too little, skin in the game for home loans.

[Jill]

I used to be all for housing developments where a certain number of units were required to be low-income. That ended the day I couldn't leave my house because my driveway was part of a homicide scene connected to the section 8 house across the street.

[iris lilies]

I used to be all for housing developments where a certain number of units were required to be low-income. That ended the day I couldn't leave my house because my driveway was part of a homicide scene connected to the section 8 house across the street.

Me too! I used to have liberal politics and be all for publicly funded housing developments and etc-- when I lived scads of miles away from them, too.
But when I moved to a place in the shadow of giant public housing towers of the 1960's where the filth and ennui of residents, and the corruption of gubmnt officials there directly threatened the health and safety of my neighborhood, I got radicalized. Now I don't think anyone owes anyone any housing since I've seen what happens with those who don't have skin in the game when it's handed to them.