Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
09.12.2007 5:02 pm

An own-to-rent solution for housing

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Dean Baker, one of the experts I interviewed for today’s column on the subprime mortgage situation, thinks he has hit upon a way to help struggling homeowners without bailing out lenders. He calls it his Subprime Borrower Protection Plan. Here’s how he describes the key feature of the plan:

This proposal ensures that subprime borrowers will not be thrown out of their home because they cannot meet the terms of a predatory mortgage. The plan … Gives homeowners facing foreclosure the option of renting their home for as long as they want at the fair market rate. This rate is determined by an independent appraiser in the same way that an appraiser determines the market value of a home when a bank issues a mortgage.

To make the plan work, Congress would have to pass a federal law to override the state laws that now govern foreclosures. No new bureaucracy would be required; Baker says the same judges who oversee foreclosures now could enforce the right to rent.

If Congress wants to focus the aid on poor people, it could set a price cap that would prevent McMansion owners from getting relief. The plan doesn’t bail out lenders — who probably won’t relish the prospect of becoming long-term landlords — and it doesn’t give homeowners a windfall either. They would still lose ownership of the house. But  the plan would help stabilize poor neighborhoods, where property values often suffer when large numbers of homes go into foreclosure.

Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal-leaning think tank. But his idea has also won praise from economists at traditionally conservative institutions like the American Enterprise Institute.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Tags:
5 comments

Comments are closed.

That idea has a lot of merit. I am glad that this is being publicized by this paper. I hope that the well-fed, Country-club types in Republican-front groups, like the Show-Me Institute, will chime in and let us know where they “weigh in” on this vital issue!

— whiterosesociety
7:18 pm September 12th, 2007

And, oh by the way, sir…I never got a response to my question which I emailed earlier today for the Live Chat segment. Thanks.

— whiterosesociety
8:21 pm September 12th, 2007

White Rose, your question was the second one I addressed. See http://www.stltoday.com/discussions/business/business-beat/LD09050750

— David Nicklaus
9:49 am September 13th, 2007

Thanks for responding and your service to your readers. I take issue with your branding my question for LiveChat as being “loaded.” It is no more loaded than practically everything else in our culture and society! I don’t buy into the Red State/Blue State idea, but I certainly believe that the average working person has little, if anything, in common with the Chamber of Commerce types, typified somewhat opaquely in the hard rightwing think tank called the Show-Me Institute. That divide in economic standing is certainly more relevant than the superficial differences between what passes for political parties in our beloved country. Like everyone else, I have to choose the lesser evil when I go to the polling place. I have no illusion, however, that this exercise of my voting franchise actually addresses the fundamental issue of power in our society. “Productivity”, if truly defined, can point us in the right direction in regard to figuring out who holds the strings and who are the puppets on the strings. Thank you.

— whiterosesociety
10:47 am September 13th, 2007

The long-standing intent of government policy has been to encourage home ownership by making the interest paid on a mortgage tax-deductible. This policy has a number of consequences that I consider undesirable — particularly that it gives the greatest subsidy to people with the highest incomes who are buying the most expensive houses. (And one characteristic of expensive houses is that they are generally the largest and therefore consume the most energy, even if they are equipped with relatively minor “energy-conserving” features.”

This proposed policy of further government intervention in the housing market — this time to MANDATE renting — would have the opposite intent of existing policy.

I think that it’s time to completely reevaluate government policy regarding housing with the idea of making it less fraught with hidden costs, subsidies, and unintended consequences, while targeting any subsidies to people who are genuinely poor and unable to afford decent housing. If that means that younger workers will need to rent for a few more years and SAVE some money to buy a house, so be it.

— Ted44
11:18 am September 13th, 2007