Another Anderson Idea (Part Two of Two) 4/28/2010

 [See Another Anderson Idea (Part One of Two) 4/28/2010 for the first part of this post. sch 10/9/22]

Now, let me give you two contrarian ideas: 1) single unit dwellings may not work for everyone, and 2) there may be too much capacity and not every old home is worth keeping in the market.

Didn't our subprime debacle prove that not everyone can afford a single home? Yes, it did show that the low income and the financially unsavvy should not be let loose in the world of adjustable rate mortgages. I do not suggest that these properties be mortgaged, and now for the shoe to drop: ownership does improve society. (Which is probably why George W. Bush was pushing the idea just before the economy tanked, and which the Conservatives ignore when criticizing the Democrats' homeownership positions.) People who own property do not get radical ideas.

The solution? Take a look at the property. Is it capable of more than one family living in it? Would it be more affordable as a multifamily unit? Then look at the condo concept: ownership, but of less than all the property.

Perhaps even more importantly is whether an older property must remain on the market. Think about the costs of energy or other environmental or health issues or safety issues that make razing a property a better idea. But if market issues are a major concern, then someone needs to say that losing the taxes owed on a property which will be again able to generate taxes will find other benefits in converting the property into a community garden or city park.

I like the idea of neighbors banding together to create and use a vegetable garden. The benefits socially, economically and health-wide are self-evident to me.

What really needs to change is the governing on autopilot mentality we Hoosier are afflicted with.

sch