Is Homeownership Really Falling Out of Favor?

Rooflines

The Shelterforce blog

HOME » HOUSING » HOMEOWNERSHIP

Is Homeownership Really Falling Out of Favor?

Posted by Rachel Silver on August 22, 2014

Homeownership seems to be falling out of favor.  Newspapers these days are peppered with articles that highlight the skepticism of younger Americans about whether buying a home is a good investment, and with so many people still suffering the effects of the housing crisis that started in 2008, who can blame them?  The MacArthur Foundation recently published the results of a nationwide survey of Americans' attitudes and perceptions about housing.  Based on this survey, many people feel that, given the changes over the past several decades in the way we live our lives, renting a home has become more appealing and owning less appealing.  Perhaps more surprisingly, a majority of adults believe that renters can be just as successful as owners at achieving the American Dream.  But is this really true, or, in the current backlash against homeownership, are we in danger of throwing out the baby along with the bath water?

Just what does it mean to achieve the American Dream, and why has it been so closely associated with homeownership?  The ideal of the American Dream is the opportunity to achieve a better life, unconstrained by class and caste distinctions that are prevalent in other parts of the world. The myth of America is that you can start from nothing and succeed by hard work and ability alone. But in practical terms, to really move up and out of poverty, American families need to build asset wealth, not just grow their incomes; historically, the best way to build asset wealth has been through homeownership .  Because of this, homeownership and the American Dream are deeply entwined in public perception, to the point that many people think homeownership is the American Dream.

It is also important to consider that historically, the opportunity to own a home and build asset wealth has not been equally available to all segments of the population.  Because of restrictive covenants, redlining, and other discriminatory practices, minority populations have not had the same access to homeownership as white populations, contributing to today’s disparity in both homeownership and poverty rates between white and minority households. What is especially troubling is that the gap between white and minority homeownership rates is widening, meaning that minorities continue to have less access to asset wealth building opportunities than their white peers.  While today’s young renters may be happy with their housing tenure, for lower-income families, access to homeownership can be a real and necessary step towards financial stability—provided, of course, that the homeownership opportunity is not unaffordable, speculative, and risky.

Because of homeownership’s traditional role in helping create strong, stable neighborhoods, communities across the United States have developed programs to promote affordable homeownership opportunities and assist first-time homebuyers.  Our work at Cornerstone Partnership has focused on building the scale and capacity of community homeownership programs that preserve long-term affordability.  We help these programs implement a series of best practices we call “stewardship,” which encompasses a range of activities, including pricing units affordably, educating and supporting buyers, preventing predatory lending, and preserving public subsidy for future generations of homebuyers. Over the last several years, we have helped hundreds of agencies strengthen their programs, gain knowledge from their peers, and collect data to support the impact of their work.  Not surprisingly, research conducted by the Urban Institute in 2010revealed that stewarded programs with long-term affordability have seen far lower foreclosure rates than the national average .

There is no doubt that the housing crisis hurt homeowners, especially those in the middle income ranges. Six years after the start of the crisis, we are still suffering its effects. As a nation, our faith in homeownership has taken a blow.  Certainly not everyone wants or is ready to own a home, and a range of decent and affordable housing options should be available in every community.  But homeownership done right provides unparalleled asset building opportunities with multi-generational benefits.  Tellingly, the MacArthur Foundation survey revealed that despite skepticism about the benefits of homeownership, 70 percent of respondents who are non-owners aspire to own a home someday. Wouldn’t it be great if there were more safe and affordable options available to make this dream come true?

(Photo by Alan Cleaver, CC BY.)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR more »

Rachel Silver is director of Cornerstone Partnership, a peer network focused on helping nonprofits and public agencies strengthen homeownership and inclusionary housing programs that support long-term affordability and community stability.

3 Ways America Enables Slaughter in Gaza

  WORLD  

AlterNet / By Nicolas J.S. Davies

3 Ways America Enables Slaughter in Gaza

The U.S. government plays a central role in perpetuating the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The American and Israeli flags.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

August 20, 2014  |  

Opinion polling during a crisis tends to reflect the passions of the moment, but Americans have told pollsters for decades that we want our government to take an even-handed position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A Chicago Council Global Views survey in 2012 found that 65% of Americans want the U.S. to "not take either side", while only 30% want it to "take Israel's side". That majority rose to 74% vs 17% at the height of the U.S. war in Iraq in 2004.  American debate on the hundreds of civilian deaths in Gaza and the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict is polarized between feelings of sympathy with civilian victims on either side and mutual vilification of the Likud-led government of Israel and the Hamas-led government in Gaza.  But it may be more constructive for Americans to think about the role that the U.S. government plays in perpetuating this never-ending and heart-rending conflict.

But despite decades of presenting itself as an "honest broker" for Middle East peace, there are three ways that the U.S. unequivocally takes the Israeli side in the conflict and effectively supports the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) with all it entails, from illegal settlement building to horrific violence:

1. Military aid. The U.S. has provided Israel with at least $73 billion in military aid and currently gives it $3.1 billion per year.  Under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) and Arms Export Control Act (AECA), the U.S. is obliged to suspend or terminate military aid when U.S. weapons are used against civilians or in other ways that violate international humanitarian law, but these provisions have not been invoked or enforced in the case of Israel since 1982.  After resupplying the Israelis with ammunition during the Gaza crisis, the Obama administration has finally begun reviewing Israeli arms requests on a case-by-case basis and is witholding a new shipment of Hellfire missiles. Compliance with the FAA and AECA would require a suspension of military aid until recent alleged violations of U.S. law have been fully investigated, and stricter compliance could justify ending all military aid until a permanent peace settlement is reached and the occupation is ended.

2. Diplomatic cover. Since 1966, the U.S. has used its UN Security Council veto 83 times, more than the other four Permanent Members combined.  Forty-two of those vetoes have served to kill resolutions on Israel and Palestine, effectively shielding Israel from accountability under international law.  Israel has taken advantage of this effective immunity from the rule of law to violate the Geneva Conventions and other human rights laws, to continually expand its illegal settlements in the OPT and to ignore UN Security Council resolutions that require it to withdraw from the OPT.  The U.S. also uses its diplomatic, military and economic power in other ways to shield Israel from international accountability.  This extraordinary use of the U.S.veto and American power to shield a foreign state from the rule of law must end, before it further undermines a fragile system of international law that has already been badly damaged and weakened by the U.S.'s own illegal actions since 2001.

3. Moral support.  Israel is now a wealthy, developed country with an advanced weapons industry, so it could adapt to even a complete cut-off of U.S. military aid.  But U.S. diplomatic and Congressional support is critical to the Israeli government's ability to ignore otherwise universal condemnation of its illegal settlement building, human rights abuses and failure to end the occupation.  The UN General Assembly passed 21 resolutions on Israel-Palestine in 2013, mostly by at least 165-6, with the US and Israel in the minority. But U.S. support confers a false sense of legitimacy on Israeli policies.  Unconditional moral support encourages the Israeli government to press ahead with an illegal territorial expansion that the world will never recognize, leading only to endless conflict and growing international isolation for Israel itself.

These three elements of U.S. policy form a stable tripod, a three-legged stool upon which this otherwise unacceptable state of conflict grinds away without end and regularly flares up in horrific slaughter and mass destruction.  

Decades of UN resolutions require Israel to end its occupation of the OPT, to dismantle illegal settlements in the OPT and to treat Palestinians, both in Israel and in the OPT, according to the rights guaranteed to people everywhere by international humanitarian law.  The U.S. officially stands with the rest of the world on the fundamental questions, that the occupation must end, that Israel's international borders are the ones recognized by the UN in 1949, and on the protections guaranteed to civilians living under occupation by the 4th Geneva Convention.

President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry adopted a public posture of "getting tough" with the Netanyahu government over negotiations and settlement-building.  But the unwavering U.S. commitment to its three pillars of unconditional support for the Israeli occupation sent Netanyahu an unmistakable message that he could safely ignore Obama's and Kerry's "get tough" posture.  This left them looking impotent and more than a little naive, and it emboldened Netanyahu to launch the deadliest and most destructive assault yet on Gaza.  The Israelis seem to have achieved their goal of tightening the blockade by destroying the tunnels that were Gaza's only lifeline to the world, but this has only hardened the determination of Palestinians in Gaza to resist the even more restricted future the Israelis are seeking to impose on them.

Will Americans keep pretending that our government has been an "honest broker" in its efforts to end this horrific conflict?  Or will we finally demand real changes in the three aspects of U.S. policy that perpetuate war and occupation and deny peace to innocent civilians on both sides? 

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of "Blood On Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq." Davies also wrote the chapter on "Obama At War" for the book, "Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader."