Via Sullivan:
A lot of talk has been made about home ownership in this country, but a lot of low-income people don't own, they rent. One thing about rent is: it can go up when you sign a new lease. One thing about hours of work is, for many workers, especially in the service industries, like retail or restaurant work, there just isn't a guarantee about hours. In a bad economy, hours can be hard to come by for part-time workers. Also, these people are at risk for job losses in bad economies because their employment is more directly dependent on consumers--if people aren't shopping at your store or eating at your restaurant, it will go under. The more hours of actual work it takes to afford to keep a roof over one's head, the more insecurity--because sometimes making rent means cutting other things back to the hurting point--food bills, electricity, heat.
Under those circumstances, an unplanned emergency like a car repair or a medical bill can really just be the tripwire between having a roof over your head and homelessness. Because renting means you continue to pay for a roof that you never pay off--home ownership at a reasonable fixed-rate mortgage is desirable, but for many people, economic illiteracy and bad credit thwart their ability to attain a secure living arrangement. Which is to say, the system makes obtaining a good loan at reasonable terms onerous for low-income people by stacking the paperwork against them, and people are monetarily penalized for what they don't have--money.
So the affordable housing issue comes down to two problems--making sure people can afford to live somewhere by making sure they are paid enough to do just that, and by not penalizing poor people for trying to pay their bills however they can. I don't know that anyone ever looks at the problem that way. But that's sure how I see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment