Video of my run on all of North Avenue, Gay street, and most of Greenmount (2013, tax)

[KLynch10]

Good convo going on. To address the thoughts of someone buying then not being able to maintain repairs. The mortgage on a 50k house would be $400 at most. Who is going to rent anything to anyone for less than $600, if not $800-$1200. Think about how much money is saved every month, then compare it against repairs, you are making out well. It's like buying a new car because you are tired of reparing your old one.....it costs you thousands more to buy that new car than to make a fix or two a year.

As far as depreciation, I don't buy that. If you buy a house for $50k it is probably not ever going to be worth less than that, and if you are paying down your balance every month. You gain principal every month. And you know what else happens, when people take ownership and invest in their neighborhood.... It improves.

Like is said, instead of allowing people to coast by, set them up with an opportunity to have concrete and self value.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by End-User

I'm not sure what makes you think racism has anything to do with it, and I don't know much about Baltimore's history with Jim Crow. I didn't think it had a huge effect on Baltimore compared to places further south. But I am pretty sure you are talking about redlining.

I am not talking about racial discrimintation though, just credit. And I am pretty sure that banks were much less risk averse prior to WW2. But what about the time after Baltimore's vacants became an issue? What about now? Could a first time buyer with no credit history and no full time job able to get a mortgage? How about a person with a full time job but several thousand in consumer debt? And do banks consider whether or not a person is currently getting welfare in some form?

As for your remark about a lack of safety nets, does it really matter to someone who believes they have already hit bottom and can't fall any further?

Baltimore had severe segregation by practice. Deed restrictions, redlining and more there are some interesting articles and books on the subject. Still under this backdrop blacks were able to buy homes. True they weren't the best available but it was theirs and they took pride in them.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by KLynch10

Like is said, instead of allowing people to coast by, set them up with an opportunity to have concrete and self value.

Like others have said... that whole range of "set them up with" as an approach to solving problems...
has itself become the source of most of the problems being faced.

It just doesn't work.
Those who might/will take advantage of them and thrive within such "programs"...
w/don't really need the programs to have that accomplishment.

The others brought into "the program"...
and almost always by the efforts of other (well intentioned social work type) people...
will almost always end up in circumstances similar to where they began.

Success grows upward from strong well established roots.
It can't be imposed anymore than democracy will be imposed in Iraq by our efforts there.

[mrboltonman]

I agree that the "set them up with" seems to be a major problem.

Stop all the freebies. We can't support them and are just borrowing money to keep the current system limping along.

[End-User]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Baltimore had severe segregation by practice. Deed restrictions, redlining and more there are some interesting articles and books on the subject. Still under this backdrop blacks were able to buy homes. True they weren't the best available but it was theirs and they took pride in them.

Thanks for the information, my knowledge on the issue is limited to things like city planning and public transit policy... any input on practices outside the public sphere is welcome. Still, I think your focus on African Americans obscures the point a little. You appear to be discussing an earlier time period and wealthier economic class than I am.

As for KLynch10, I've seen houses being sold for even less than $50k but concede I don't know the difference between a house going for that price and one going for $30k less. But his point about buying a new car kinda proves my point: I know far more people who would stick with the old one for years and years because their financial situation didn't give them the flexibility to replace it with something that saves them money in the long term. And from what I know of Baltimore's underclass, it is unreasonable to expect that they would in fact be able to pay their mortgage every month (or phone, electric, and other bills). Setting them up with initial opportunity doesn't seem like a solution for sustained success.

[KLynch10]

I agree with everyone that we should give way less to the poor than we do. But with Barack O'Malley running the world, and everyone still bowing down to everything the NAACP and ACLU bring up...it's just not going to happen.

So instead of throwing away all this money on Public Housing and Section 8 Vouchers, put the money towards low income buying programs for these people. If you work at McDonalds, you should be able to pay a $50k mortgage. And if you default on your mortgage, than tough luck, you are worthless. These Section 8 and Public housing people have no respect for their apartment or neighborhood, part of the reasons they let their communities go to crap. But if they owned, it could change some of these communities. People are willing to let their worthless cousin or brother live with them when they aren't paying a dime for it, if they owned, that person would ship up or ship out!

[redd1skng]

Originally Posted by KLynch10

I agree with everyone that we should give way less to the poor than we do. But with Barack O'Malley running the world, and everyone still bowing down to everything the NAACP and ACLU bring up...it's just not going to happen.

So instead of throwing away all this money on Public Housing and Section 8 Vouchers, put the money towards low income buying programs for these people. If you work at McDonalds, you should be able to pay a $50k mortgage. And if you default on your mortgage, than tough luck, you are worthless. These Section 8 and Public housing people have no respect for their apartment or neighborhood, part of the reasons they let their communities go to crap. But if they owned, it could change some of these communities. People are willing to let their worthless cousin or brother live with them when they aren't paying a dime for it, if they owned, that person would ship up or ship out!

Say what?

So much credibility lost with that baseless statement.

[End-User]

Originally Posted by redd1skng

Say what?

So much credibility lost with that baseless statement.

Relax, that was nothing but hyperbole played for laughs. Please don't let it detract from the credibility of the rest of the post, which is a valid hypothesis on ways to decrease environmental neglect amongst underclass citizens in Baltimore. Giving people a bigger stake in the physical community might result in them investing (via sweat equity or otherwise) into it.

As for the Barack O'Malley jest? I'm pretty sure it is a statement about the way national economic agendas are being translated down to the local level and where they don't always mesh with the goals and abilities of smaller communities. I'm sure you'd agree it is bad when NCLB does this with the schools, would you considered it may also be counterproductive when applied to allocating government funds? Same with Baltimore's NAACP chapter, it should be supporting their national objectives while realizing the local problems may be unrelated and require opposing action (I don't know if this is the case or not, I'd like to belive so considering Mfume was based here while running the organization).

[KLynch10]

I combined Barack and O'malley into one person, because they are the two most liberal politicians ever, and Marylanders are dealing with both right now.

The newest massive neighborhood in bmore, Uplands, delayed for 10 years.... Research why?

Research the tearing down of any housing project and what will follow is a court case by the ACLU or NAACP.

[bmoregrimey]

Originally Posted by End-User

I'm not sure it is obvious; I spent several hours pondering that KLynch10 post before I could get past my initial reaction of total agreement, through the feeling that something was missing from the equation, and arriving at a coherent response.

I'm also not sure that this has anything to do with pulling yourself up by the bootstraps or the existences thereof. I will agree that the ability to maintain a home should be factored into the discussion, but I don't think we should include the other "social issues" you mention about a need for life/job skills or drug rehab. Those are related but separate issues, and we need to compartmentalize the issues unless we want to become paralyzed by trying to find a solution the fixes everything at once rather than one that fixes one problem without intensifying others.

to compartmentalize an issue would be to throw good money behind bad, y would u give someone a home who has no job skills? y would u give someone a home who has a heroin addiction? before people can own a home they have to first establish independence, many poor people dont have highschool educations or job skills, there needs to be more opportunites for people who have made mistakes to reintegrate into soceity or else they will be career criminals and thats never good for a neighborhood