Yesterday, on a bus tour of "Empowerment Zone" sites, I was struck by the difference in quality between houses built by Carolyn Olson's GMMHC organization and others. The GMMHAC houses seemed to be of a much higher quality than those built by other developers. I was also struck by the fact that these higher quality houses were constructed for up to $30,000 less than those built by some other "Non-Profit" developers. Carolyn is to be congratulated. The total cost of construction for these great three and four bedroom houses was about $140,000.
This amount is even more amazing when compared to the cost of subsidizing even ONE "affordable" rental unit, which City officials on the tour admitted was about $159,000 of taxpayers money. My immediate question was why? Could we not SAVE $20,000 of taxpayer money by simply building a house and giving it to the poor person? Rather than having a non-profiteer rent to them. That poor person and family would then become more stable, less of a burden on social services; able to pursue other economic opportunities, and paying taxpayer dollars back to the City. A housing "Advocate" answered that no, the rental unit can be used for twenty years while the poor homeowner might become affluent and sell the house. Sounds crazy to me, isn't the house still there. It does not suddenly disappear with the person's poverty! The question remains, WHY (except for giving taxpayer dollars to political friends) would a rental unit cost more than the cost of constructing a quality single-family house? Since I am a contractor and have in the past built houses, I KNOW there is an economy of scale. It is cheaper per unit to build many apartments in one building than a single unit. Heck, it is even 20 to 25% cheaper to build single houses if several are built within a small geographical area using similar plans. You just cannot get geographically closer or more similar than units in a single apartment building. An example is the real cost of housing the poor. I am NOT talking about the amount of rent to the person; I am referring to the actual total cost to everyone including taxpayers through government programs. Middle class people are housed for less! It is the reason I advocate for "affordable homeownership". Look at the cost, in total dollars, of the units at Portland Village, a program that I have, and still do support. The "actual" cost of those affordable units is more than similar units cost in the suburbs. A lot of scarce resources are wasted in the poverty industry. What is the "Actual" cost per matt on the floor for the temporary shelter at 11th Ave. and 19th? If you combined that nightly amount for three women what kind of monthly payment on a house could that amount pay for? If you give me the amount of total cost I would be happy to run the tables and tell you how good a house that would afford. It is not good business to fix a problem you are paid to treat. Even if it costs less. An example is the unbelievable belief in the myth that two ten dollar an hour jobs will not allow someone to own a house. I bought a duplex on far less than that when inflation is controlled for. My son works at Lunds for $12.00 an hour. He bought a house. Did he have support in buying it? Well of course! I tried to get each of my kids to buy houses when they were graduating from high school and working their way through college. It is not question of affording to own a house. It is a question of not being able to afford to NOT own a house. Poor people can not afford to NOT own and control their on housing. It is far cheaper to own a house than to rent an apartment. That myth that poor people cannot is one repeated so often that it is part of the culture of poverty and has become one of the chief handicaps poor people must labor under. Everyone who is "supposed" to be helping them convinces them, and because they believe this lie they do not even make the attempt. Many recent immigrants do not believe this social lie and so are not so handicapped. They become affluent in a few years after coming to this country. Succeeding regardless of coming in poverty and with poor language skills. They of course start out living with many together and buying their housing. An interesting study is the differences among immigrant groups. Some come with the belief that they can succeed in owning property, others come and use primarily social service housing. Who does better, the users of public housing or the ones who come to buy no matter how much effort it takes? I have a bunch of Ecuadorian neighbors and friends who own houses who might answer that for you. What is needed is support to overcome the myths of the poverty culture I refer to, and support to make enough people successful that it becomes a model and accepted possibility. Some of us are working on just such a national model for the Indian community. But it is a very hard handicap to overcome for all oppressed people whether it is Indian, Black, Asian, or poor White people. A "Self-Sufficient Communities Initiative" model needs to be created for all people who have been taught they cannot be landowners. It does not matter if it is the poor White or Black from a sharecropper history, or an urban Indian, a model needs to be created to support a culture where poor people control their own housing. Another "housing" issue is the homeless and mental illness question. The State of Minnesota indeed has a major responsibility for the homeless plight of many. Throwing mentally disabled people onto the street several years ago. This could have only been collusion between the liberal crowd and the poverty industry types. I can almost hear a Republican engaging in demagoguery pounding his chest about the cost of State operated facilities. Only to be followed closely by some liberal jerk talking about concentrating these people in institutions not creating opportunities for growth. They are now concentrated under bridges and in institutional type "Supportive Housing" in crime ridden impacted neighborhoods. The heartless collusion of "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans and "Social Liberal" Democrats has created a bonanza for the Poverty Industry and a mountain of suffering for the affected people. Some ask where we can house the homeless. How about Fort Snelling? You could house a thousand and not overfill that facility. Will we? Hell no! You would have the social service industry joining with the "Hard Hearted" middle class republicans to fight such a use. That is unless they were pulling some hefty "admin dollars" to "supervise" it. They say it would cost too much to fix up. Why not use the homeless to fix it up. Four hours work gets you two days of housing. Some liberal social service types might say, "well they do not meet standards". Whose standards? The underside of a bridge or a cardboard box on the riverbank does not meet many standards either. We, the taxpayers, own enough housing and buildings ( that is sitting locked up and empty each night) to house every homeless person in Minnesota. But the Conservative Republicans AND the good liberals would rather spend the money on the poverty industry rather than use those facilities. With a little planning and thought "WE" could have it better! Jim Graham, Ventura Village Wise sayings: "We can only be what we give ourselves the power to be" - A Cherokee Feast of Days The people are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. (And poverty) - Thomas Jefferson TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
