Workforce Housing law (Manchester, Londonderry, New London: foreclosed, rental, insurance)

[BF66389]

Greg,
I agree with you completely that there was a conscious discrimination effort in the construction of suburbia (semi-related example: did you know many bridges on Long Island were constructed too low for buses...to prevent inner city blacks from reaching the beaches- an actual documented reason for their design specifications). Unfortunately the correction for such activities is not a blanket/poorly phrased bill from the state that forces low-income zoning on towns.
Instead, a MUCH better way to encourage home ownership among low income families is for the state to mirror federal "hometown hero" programs but open it up with different criteria...for example- a single mother who has just completed a degree or respected trades program may also be eligible for reduced down payments/lower interest loans. It isn't a handout- its a start to providing a stepping stone for people to get their families into better areas...but with the accompanying pride of ownership of that area (as opposed to run-down section 8 housing). That whole- teach a man to fish...idea.

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by BF66389

Greg,
I agree with you completely that there was a conscious discrimination effort in the construction of suburbia (semi-related example: did you know many bridges on Long Island were constructed too low for buses...to prevent inner city blacks from reaching the beaches- an actual documented reason for their design specifications). Unfortunately the correction for such activities is not a blanket/poorly phrased bill from the state that forces low-income zoning on towns.
Instead, a MUCH better way to encourage home ownership among low income families is for the state to mirror federal "hometown hero" programs but open it up with different criteria...for example- a single mother who has just completed a degree or respected trades program may also be eligible for reduced down payments/lower interest loans. It isn't a handout- its a start to providing a stepping stone for people to get their families into better areas...but with the accompanying pride of ownership of that area (as opposed to run-down section 8 housing). That whole- teach a man to fish...idea.

If this is not a handout, then what would you call it? They are receiving other people's tax dollars in the form of a reduced interest rate. Why should a "single mother" pay less of an interest rate or reduced payments then someone else who works just as hard and plays by the rules and does what ever it takes to pay their way instead of relying on the "government"? Why should my tax dollars pay for that? Here is an idea-work two or three jobs, don't have kids until you can afford to support them without MY tax dollars. Plenty of people in this country have worked hard and sacrificed a lot without ANY public assistance, low interest taxpayer subsidized loans or whatever fancy name they give it by taking taxes from one person and giving them to another. We have such a sense of entitlement in this country anymore. No one is "entitled" to live in a house in whatever neighborhood they want to.

Why should the state of NH through MY tax dollars have to pay for "stepping stones" for people to live in "better areas"? Here is an idea-if you want to live in town X work your ass off and pay your own way like the rest of those people in town X. I know-a very foreign concept in today's world.

[GregW]

Nicolem et all - I suppose you also object to the government spending your TAXES on monopoly military suppliers and mercenaries in IRAQ. You seem to object to providing a break for the underclass but have no objection having your TAXES and most of your other income padding the pockets of the Walton (Wal-Mart) family.

As far as I can tell the objection is not to providing low income housing so long as we can avoid low income people. As I am low income by eastern Massachusetts and southern NH standards, I would be one of the people that might just benefit by a low income housing program. Oh, wait a minute. I live in a condo so I already do.

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by GregW

Nicolem et all - I suppose you also object to the government spending your TAXES on monopoly military suppliers and mercenaries in IRAQ. You seem to object to providing a break for the underclass but have no objection having your TAXES and most of your other income padding the pockets of the Walton (Wal-Mart) family.

As far as I can tell the objection is not to providing low income housing so long as we can avoid low income people. As I am low income by eastern Massachusetts and southern NH standards, I would be one of the people that might just benefit by a low income housing program. Oh, wait a minute. I live in a condo so I already do.

There is a BIG difference between defense spending which benefits us all as opposed to giving few people money for a home. Even if there is issue with how that $$ is spent-millitary spending is in essence for every US citizen where programs like these are not. Sorry there is no comparison there.

Don't know what Walmart has to do with it-but I don't shop there so no-"most of my other income does not go there".

Sorry but my father grew up dirt poor and I mean dirt poor and there was never an ounce of public assistance he received. He would shuck corn and do odd jobs all day at the age of 11 to get a meal in his stomach at the board walk in the summer so sorry if I don't have any sympathy for those who are too lazy to do whatever it takes-two or three jobs if it is needed. My parents worked two jobs many times and again never an ounce of public assistance etc. I grew up very poor and for many years my husband and I worked 2 jobs each and I went to graduate school at the time-paying my way-while others lined up to receive a "pay check" in the form of tax payer dollars so they could have their education free and not have to work while doing it. It was ok for me to work 80 hours while getting my masters and paying for it though?

There are many many people out there like me and my parents who did it the right way. The problem is that today-people don't want to work hard, sacrifice and do whatever it takes. It is too easy to play victim and expect others to pay for you. it is also very easy to vilify all rich people as evil and that they got their $$ by robbing from poor people. Sorry that is simply not the case.

I will always believe that if you want something then you use your own two hands and work your ass off to get it.

Don't assume that everyone who is against socialistic programs like these are "rich". You seem to have such a hatred for those who would be deemed "rich" and that is a shame. I grew up poor and will never be "rich", but I certainly don't resent the "rich". I resent freeloaders. There are good and bad rich people. However, all freeloaders are bad-at least in my opinion.

Not sure about your last comment-a condo being low income. I live in a modest two bedroom townhome myself because although I was "approved" for a much larger mortgage that would have enabled me to buy a home, we chose to do what we could afford and buy a two bedroom townhouse. Unlike others who want to be bailed out from this housing mess-but I guess that is another argument altogether.

[jthibodeau]

Well said, Nic....

I was going to toss in my two cents but you've covered the bases for me. Thank you very much.

Perhaps we can have those who wish to wish to slash our military budget help companies such as BAE, Osram Sylvania, Lockheed Saunders and BAE, just to name a few, by writing out pink slips for the employees for free. I'm sure that will help our economy.

Then they, and those that support government give-a-ways, can pool their money and form an investment group to finance all the low income construction they want. Then they can return profits, if there is any, to the Government in order to continue the handouts for generation to come and avoid being labeled as a bottom feeding money monger. I'm sure this will allow them a good nights sleep in order to dream up other ways to pick the pocket of the working man and women.

Sorry....just had to blow off a bit of steam.

[GregW]

The "rich" have made their money by either "picking the pockets of the working class and poor" or inheriting the wealth from people that did. That is basic capitalist/business economics. That is the point of the game. Rob the working people by not paying them their fair share for the work to provide extravagance for the wealthy. Just look at the banking bailout for a recent example. The government wasn’t about to sacrifice the billionaire’s bonuses on the cross $ of Mammon.

I object to being forced to play a game where I am starting behind and nearly guaranteed to stay behind. I believe this country started down the dark side to ruin Eisenhower’s support of the French Empire in Indochina and took a major turn in that direction by electing Regan. Now we are reaping the cost of misplaced spending. I do not hate rich people (I know a number of them and they are interesting people but never do business with them) but I do hate a system that is set up to make the richer at the expense of us all.

If you believe military spending is designed to do more than make the owners of the companies’ involver even wealthier you are not seeing very clearly. The Dept of Defense could care less about “protecting the people”. They are only interested in protecting their contractors and self aggrandizement of the politicians collecting the “campaign contributions”. The wars since WWII have had not provided us with a more secure world but have only made it riskier for all but the warmongers.

Getting back to the original topic I think the bill that requires the towns to provide the opportunity for a developer to build, even if I think the town should do the developing themselves, workforce housing is a step in the proper direction. Among other reasons is why a company should bother to locate in a town where the cost of housing is so high that their workers will have to be paid substantially more than a lower cost location. Why do you think labor intensive manufacturing is being done in the south, or China, instead of New England?

[maestramommy]

I am a little confused as to why this is considered low income housing. I've only been following this issue in Bedford for a couple of months (thought it was only Bedford until I read about the statewide law!), but the numbers I see are housing that costs no more than $260K which would be considered affordable for a family of four on an income of $87k. These are round numbers of course. It also talked about multiple family units (apts?) that go for about $1200/month for a family of 3. Is $87K considered low income in these parts?

I've heard about the apt units in Milford from a contractor we recently worked with. He loved living in Milford until that happened, and he didn't like the changes that came with it. He moved his entire family of 6 out to Bedford because of it. Wonder if he knows what's happening here. Or is it not the same thing?

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by nicolem

[/b]
If this is not a handout, then what would you call it? They are receiving other people's tax dollars in the form of a reduced interest rate. Why should a "single mother" pay less of an interest rate or reduced payments then someone else who works just as hard and plays by the rules and does what ever it takes to pay their way instead of relying on the "government"? Why should my tax dollars pay for that? Here is an idea-work two or three jobs, don't have kids until you can afford to support them without MY tax dollars. Plenty of people in this country have worked hard and sacrificed a lot without ANY public assistance, low interest taxpayer subsidized loans or whatever fancy name they give it by taking taxes from one person and giving them to another. We have such a sense of entitlement in this country anymore. No one is "entitled" to live in a house in whatever neighborhood they want to.
Why should the state of NH through MY tax dollars have to pay for "stepping stones" for people to live in "better areas"? Here is an idea-if you want to live in town X work your ass off and pay your own way like the rest of those people in town X. I know-a very foreign concept in today's world.

That was only an example of a probable low-income individual who was now working hard and doing the right thing; the qualification isnt based on "single mother" or "low income". Instead it would be allowing for additional criteria to be used in the risk determination process; criteria which are more "background" neutral (such as stability of employment).

I helped some folks with finances in rural southwestern VA for a little bit and you would be suprised how many had no or bad information about credit. To us it seems so "simple"; but these folks DID THE RIGHT THING and asked for information...only to be given false information (like "don't get any credit cards and you'll keep a high credit score").

When these folks do save up the $$$ and they do go out and get the degree...why should they be held back just because they haven't taken out any loans or credit cards? That's just stupid...they knew they didn't have $$$...so they didn't borrow it. Now that they have $$$- lets examine them based on more meaningful criteria such as job stability and ability to pay. Unless you gamed the system (got a card, used it sometimes, paid it always)...you lost out.

Of course...I think I'm mostly arguing gibberish because I am fed up with how home loans are qualified for. It's setup like a "game" now, not actually based on much thats "real". If "real" factors were incentivized...I think we'd find a much higher level of home ownership among many low income families (some low income folks actually have VERY stable jobs) and those with no credit (again, some folks dont get credit because they ARE responsible; but it bites them at home purchase time with high interest rates and huge down payments).

I think I'm off-topic at this point...so I'm going to just be quiet

[sgthoskins]

Here we go with the leftwing big government b.s. again.

[lisa g]

BF, your example of the probable low-income individual - perhaps even from SW VA, who may be uninformed or misinformed is still not qualified for the break imo. People need to be responsible enough to educate themselves properly. I was expected to, and had my shares of ups and downs, have been taken advantage of and learned by experience without any safety net, why shouldn't everyone? This stuff has never seemed simple to me, I had to work hard to learn it and continue to learn without assistance. Being misinformed and losing out from time to time is unfortunate, but it certainly does not excuse independence or motivation to continue to try. Isn't there tremendous pride in independence? Or is that a thing of the past?