Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the free market, it is about supply and demand. Hence, the more in demand an area or neighborhood is and the more money the people have that are demanding it, is what causes home values to rise in those areas.
The white demographic is the largest market force in the housing sector. They have much higher disposable incomes and per capita incomes than blacks or Latinos. Hence, where whites desire to live really plays a major role in home value and given that home value is where a lot of individual wealth is gained, race does play a major role in creation of wealth.
Blacks generally have no problem moving into white communities. Latinos generally have no problem with moving into white communities, however, whites have problem with the idea of moving into a black or Latino community (unless its being gentrified). Hence, white communities get strong market demand from all races, increasing the price points (value) of those communities, along with wealth. On the other hand, black communities suffer lower values because the only market demand comes from other black or poor people who do not have a lot of money to begin with...hence they cannot bid up the value of those communities. However, when an area starts to gentrify (meaning becoming popular with whites), note how the values at that point start to rise.
Wealth follows white people in the housing market, as a general rule, due to white aversion to live in areas that are not white.
While in grad school, I had thought about, as my thesis, rent deduction on his/her taxes. I ended up choosing another topic.
At that same time, the New York City Council speaker at the time, Christine Quinn, put out the prospect of tax rebates on rentals. Don't believe it got anywhere.
There was a proposal, in the early 90s, by the late Jack Kemp, to transition public housing into home ownership (HOPE). (I believe he tried to start HOPE in St. Louis!). While it may have been the conservative attempt to privatize public housing, I liked the proposal. All those folk in the PJs could transition to home ownership, and enjoy the benefits, such as the MID.....!
While in grad school, I had thought about, as my thesis, rent deduction on his/her taxes. I ended up choosing another topic.
At that same time, the New York City Council speaker at the time, Christine Quinn, put out the prospect of tax rebates on rentals. Don't believe it got anywhere.
There was a proposal, in the early 90s, by the late Jack Kemp, to transition public housing into home ownership (HOPE). (I believe he tried to start HOPE in St. Louis!). While it may have been the conservative attempt to privatize public housing, I liked the proposal. All those folk in the PJs could transition to home ownership, and enjoy the benefits, such as the MID.....!
Earlier this week I heard that Massachusetts has some income tax provision of this sort.
As a rent serf with no hope of owning a home, and paying market rent consuming half my income, I do not support government programs which leapfrog welfare recipients into home ownership.
I go back and forth on homeownership. I'm fortunate enough to own but it's also a bit of a trap that may keep you in place even if you don't want to be, especially if your mortgage is lower than current rental prices. It takes money to keep a house in good condition long term and while some people relish that and love caring for their places, others don't have the money, desire or skill to do so. Overall I'm happy to have a place that's mine but I do struggle when I'm hit with multiple repairs in a short time frame, which always seems to happen, and it just get's worse if you let things go too long. But the pluses outweigh the minuses and I don't want to be at the mercy of someone else when it comes to my living arrangements.
There is no doubt that owning is the best option in almost all cases, as home ownership is essentially an investment account, typically growing at a nice rate over the 'period of investment'. Gaining this equity in your home is one of the easiest and fastest ways to build wealth.
And, lowering the standards so less well off people of all colors could borrow a ton of money in an attempt to expand home ownership rates to poorer people had tremendous negative consequences, as we saw.
What did "we see"?
The housing crisis? It had nothing to do with minority lending. You had a disproportionate # of hispanic borrowers b/c the boom was in Florida, Arizona, California, Nevada -- but black areas lagged behind in value and volume of loans.
This myth that the housing crisis was about minorities is some B.S. It was mostly middle class white people, Joe Sixpack, taking advantage of the mania driven by a globally deregulated bond market. Housing also went nuts in Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, France, Belgium, Portugal, et cetera, none of which was driven by any kind of government minority housing program, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.