I would like to propose an alternative to public housing and Section 8 vouchers in Will county. It is apparent that public housing projects are failures here and elsewhere. Chicago is tearing theirs down as quickly as they can. Joliet has plans to bulldoze Poole Gardens. And it is hard to see Evergreen Terrace as anything, but a dangerous, blighted failure. The government's solution has been to try to spread public housing out throughout the community by offering Section 8 vouchers. This has allowed the problems of the projects to spread to previously stable residential neighborhoods and to hurt property values of existing homes.
My proposed alternative is to build multi-income new subdivisions. This means not simply redeveloping a small area in an existing neighborhood or renting houses in middle class neighborhoods to those on public assistance. It means building whole new neighborhoods on undeveloped land without neighboring subdivisions. Joliet, Plainfield, and numerous other communities build whole new neighborhoods of high priced homes where just last year farm animals grazed. So new neighborhoods of a different type certainly can be built.
The neighborhoods I envision would include a mix of home styles. Some duplexes, some small ranch homes, some mid-size split levels, some larger homes. Basically a mix of what one would find if they took random homes from every neighborhood in Joliet. These homes would then be sold to whomever desired to buy one. However, there would be assistance for low income families to purchase homes.
The type of assistance I am proposing would be to offer 30 year fixed term mortgages that would have the payments split between the buyers and the government. The government would pay the interest using the funds they now spend on Section 8 vouchers and housing projects. The buyers would be responsible for the principle and for property taxes. They would own their homes and be able to sell them and any rise in property values would accrue to them. There should be a method by which continued eligibility for housing assistance is determined. This would mean that if a family's income rose to there they no longer qualified for assistance the government would stop paying the interest and it would become the responsibility of the family. There could even be a sliding scale.
This arrangement provides several positives. First, it provides low income families with an investment in their homes and communities. They stand to profit or lose based upon their upkeep of their homes. They are rooted in the community instead of moving from apartment to apartment. They pay taxes so they now have a financial interest in what local governments are doing with tax dollars. Second, it protects the property values of surrounding homes. When your neighbors have an incentive to maintain their homes and to keep the neighborhood safe and clean, the value of your property is protected and enhanced. An enhanced tax base would also occur. The families moving into these new neighborhoods already send their kids to our schools. Only now instead of living in a housing project that pays no taxes, they live in a home that is taxable. They share in the costs of the government services they utilize.
These neighborhoods would be open to anyone who wished to buy a home in them regardless of their income status. Those who do not qualify for assistance would purchase a home just like they would anywhere else. Of course a home in a mixed income neighborhood would have a lower property value than a home in a neighborhood of only high end homes. But, this reduced value occurs from the moment it is built so the buyer pays a lower price. This is in contrast to existing homes that have low income families move in next door and see the home they paid full price for fall in value. If these neighborhoods prove to be safer and better maintained that most people would expect a mixed income neighborhood to be, then property values will rise as people change their opinions of such areas. This would provide a profit potential to middle and upper income people willing to take a risk and buy in these new neighborhoods.
The key question is who would build such neighborhoods since there is less profit to be made from smaller homes and the profit on any larger homes would be reduced because of reduced property values due to it being a mixed income neighborhood. We all know housing developers make their money by buying land, building oversized homes for the upper middle class, and tacking on a $100,000 premium over what they cost to build. This results in big profits for the developers and lots of new homes for those who can afford $300,000 and $400,000 homes. My proposal would be to force these same developers to build these mixed income neighborhoods. This would be done by requiring that for every building permit issued in one of their exclusive new subdivisions they build a home in one of these mixed-income subdivisions. There would need to be set quotas on how many of different size and types houses were built so that developers would build what is needed and not just what they think is profitable. This would create two benefits. First, it would mean multiple builders in each of these mixed income neighborhoods which would lead to a greater variety of homes instead of cookie-cutter homes. Second, since building these homes would be tied to getting permits for their own subdivisions, it would become a cost of doing business passed along to homebuyers who desire to live in economically segregated subdivisions.
I am sure there are numerous problems and inadequacies with this proposal. However, I think it would be a considerable improvement over the current system. It focuses on not just providing current housing for low income persons. Instead, it looks to improve their long term housing status, to create economically integrated neighborhoods, to bring people together, to maintain and enhance property values, and to create stable communities where we all have a stake and in which we all can raise our families in safety.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
