Lonnetta and Dwayne took a seat on Rosemary's couch. Dwayne, 52, walking on crutches from a series of recent foot surgeries, explained that he lost his janitorial job in June when he broke his foot. The married couple asked that their last name not be used.
"Welcome to the Revolution!"
Forced to survive on Lonnetta's $637 a month Social Security check, the couple soon became homeless. Social service providers told them to stay at Harbor Light, a homeless shelter in downtown Minneapolis, where the couple would be housed on different floors. Lonnetta, 48, feared being separated from her sick husband who she said needs frequent reminders to take his medication. Instead, the couple started living out of their truck.
A relative put Lonnetta and Dwayne in contact with the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign, a national anti-poverty organization based in Minneapolis.
....
Meanwhile, Honkala grabbed several documents left on the downstairs kitchen counter, including paperwork stating that HUD owns the house. One document indicated that the home was last inspected on February 3rd.
Here we have people actually doing something about the current economic situation. There are those who would question the legitimacy of this action, however. For example, a comment on the original story:
Poverty rights?
Hey, how about property rights? If that property doesn’t belong to you, you have no business there!
Talk about a sense of entitlement. Not that I don’t feel sorry for people down on their luck…but that doesn’t give people the right to trespass or steal!
The first two sentences present a good point: What about property rights? And they people involved certainly did not own the house before they took it for their own. So who did own the house? The article states the Housing and Urban Development Department was the current owner. From their website:
What is a HUD Home?
A HUD home is a 1 to 4 unit residential property acquired by HUD as a result of a foreclosure action on an FHA-insured mortgage. HUD becomes the property owner and offers it for sale to recover the loss on the foreclosure claim
What is the Federal Housing Administration?
The Federal Housing Administration, generally known as "FHA", provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA-approved lenders throughout the United States and its territories. FHA insures mortgages on single family and multifamily homes including manufactured homes and hospitals. It is the largest insurer of mortgages in the world, insuring over 34 million properties since its inception in 1934.
What is FHA Mortgage Insurance?
FHA mortgage insurance provides lenders with protection against losses as the result of homeowners defaulting on their mortgage loans. The lenders bear less risk because FHA will pay a claim to the lender in the event of ahomeowner's default. Loans must meet certain requirements established by FHA to qualify for insurance.
Why does FHA Mortgage Insurance exist?
Unlike conventional loans that adhere to strict underwriting guidelines, FHA-insured loans require very little cash investment to close a loan. There is more flexibility in calculating household income and payment ratios. The cost of the mortgage insurance is passed along to the homeowner and typically is included in the monthly payment.
So, long story short, the government helps lenders, at the cost of the borrower, reduce their risk. When the home was foreclosed, as so many were when the economic house of cards tumbled down, the HUD took over the home. And promptly let it fill with cob webs. With the housing markets down, it could be a while before the HUD finds buyers, and thus the home-owners are driven out by the police so their house can gather dust. What theory of property rights is this? By what right does the government lay claim to empty property? And property rights theories that protect vacant government lots while families sleep in their cars leads to a question: whence did this theory come? And it seems to have quite the emotion behind it: witness other comments on the original article that express more anger than the quoted section.
Without attempting to trace the origin of the theory that the State has the right to hold property vacant, while children sleep under bridges, through history, we ask ourselves? Who benefits? The first beneficiary is the government, who can turn a profit by participating in the real estate market. As their website explains:
Are there any special programs?
Properties in designated areas are available at a reduced sales price to law enforcement officers, teachers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, nonprofits and local governments. ... Although HUD does not offer financing directly, some of our homes qualify for FHA-insured loans.
How is FHA funded?
FHA is the only government agency that operates entirely from its self-generated income and costs the taxpayers nothing. The proceeds from the mortgage insurance paid by the homeowners are captured in an account that is used to operate the program entirely.
While exceptions might be made for government employees and charity cases, this system is clearly not run to benefit the population at large. Who else benefits? The banks who have FHA mortgage insurance and real estate agents who get commission selling the homes. And lastly, regular people, sometimes, possibly, maybe. By what right should a homeless couple accept a definition of property rights that benefits everyone but themselves? It is clear that the view of property rights they are running afoul of was likely propagated and/or created by either the State or it's direct beneficiaries.
Property rights were not handed to man, from God, on a stone tablet. They should be part of a functioning society, not an impediment. Property should be some kind of social consensus, not an iron clad rule enforced by those who benefit from it.
If a property is not being used, and the owner, the State, has never used it for anything, why should not someone use it themselves? Have they not abandoned it by letting it lay dormant for so long? Why shouldn't a person be able to appropriate it for themselves, improve in it and live there? The point of all this is that the action taken in the above story is an encouraging action that fits into a world view that emphasizes property rights that benefit society, not narrow parts of it.
These thoughts are obviously fairly brief, but I think a valid point is buried in there.
No comments:
Post a Comment