next »

[Indigo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-modern-day-homestead-act/2013/01/03/983f4d8c-5443-11e2-89de-76c1c54b1418_story.html

Published: January 3

In his Dec. 27 op-ed column, “A nation settled by immigrants,” George F. Will gave an excellent account of how the 1862 Homestead Act gave hundreds of thousands of immigrants and poor Americans the chance to improve their own prospects and those of the country. Mr. Will could have used this history to make an analogy and recommendation for our own time.

With much of our urban corebeset by crime, unemployment, addiction, building vacancies and low homeownership — large swaths of Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore and other cities come to mind — why not open up condemned and abandoned properties in these places to urban homesteaders, with a 21st-century Homestead Act?



The program would be open to any comers — be they citizens or legal or illegal immigrants — and applicants would receive a property to live in, improve and win title to in, say, five years, as in the original Homestead Act. The program also could become part of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country.

A new Homestead Act might offer a partial solution to the decay of our cities and to the problem of illegal immigrants, and, of course, it could offer infusions of tax revenue to hard-pressed American municipalities.

Brent Tolbert-Smith, Catonsville



Interesting idea. In the comments there is one that states the homes are in need of a teardown but, we have all seen how amazing some renos of old, unloved places can turn out.
I think this would be interesting for sure.

[autoguy]

Interesting to see your post Indigo. It's not the kind subject seen here often though.  I'm not sure if remnants of the original Homestead Act are still in place. There may be some left but our government doesn't work for the population here any more. Not for a quite a while actually. People are going to have to stand up again some day and grow some hair on their butts. Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will come and eat you! -Ben Franklin

I don't like the way huge massive tracts of land are controlled by the Dept of the Interior and hoggish land barons while the general public scrambles in our trashed economy to get a tiny postage stamp to squat on. I see that as a big scam. Then the waste factor you mention also. Most property seizures are carried out on a county level on the courthouse steps or at county sheriff sales. Many cities have offered seized abandoned properties to the public for $1.

The main issue I see is the local population that lives in these blighted areas. They are the ones that trashed their own home grounds and they will come and trash the efforts of productive people who try and acquire and improve the properties. St Louis made some efforts in recent decades and they had to be pretty extreme about it. It was called "mobilization and recovery". The blighted areas were audited to ID any historic structures that would stay and the rest of the area was condemned and leveled. Big flat open areas where criminals and street gangs could not hide. Then the city combined the tiny city lots to larger ones and sold them for redevelopment. They had to do what they had to do I guess.

[Kay]

I live in a small town. I always wonder why the few homeless we have didn't take a old home that was empty and live there, reclaim it if you will. I mean, they couldn't make it worst. But they can, depending on the person. Could be the next meth house, drug dealer.

But then maybe not. Funds, where can they get funds for the repairs? Even the cost of supplies is beyond most 'normal' folks means, as I look at my own torn kitchen flooring typing this.

Then you face the city, goverment. If a old empty house was to get someone to care for it, mow the yard, fix the broken windows- the city would look into it. Sure enough it would be the inspector who would point out all the city codes having to be meet. And how the taxes on the property, owners had to be contacted. I see the person just giving up, leaving the home he or she could of had. Insurance, what if the person gets lead poison or sick from the old building supplies? Or a fire from the electical system that is outdated? Oh no... city officals would not allow that. At least in my town, I deal with them on rental property and they are butt heads. You try to improve a place/ home and they throw up all these rules, regs. Cheaper to just tear it down, I swear.  And anyone who had done a remodel can tell you it is a sink hole. Even doing the repairs on your own- we are talking some big money.

But the idea of people who make under 20,000 a year *myself* affording a home- would be nice. Instead it is a trailer on a piece of land, but they are paid for.

[wjbodin3]

Nothing wrong with a trailer I am in my third one myself, the original one my parents replaced with one that burned down 18 months ago. Then my fiance and I bought a new one and put it back on the same lot. So yes I have literally lived in the same place now for 40 years.

I just wish it was our own land and not a rented lot in a park. Even if the trailer is essentially by itself with only one close neighbor and his places still good 20 feet away compared to how you see most parks crammed together.

[Indigo]

I would live in a trailer. I would live in a cabin. I would live in an abandoned house that I can make my own. I would need room for some animals and a garden but I would/could do it.

The number of foreclosures and abandonments is phenomenal. Why not allow homeless or low income families who want/need a leg up, move in and make these places a home? If the government is paying for the property, why not give it away and just have the tenants pay the tax after a year? In a year, the government is now making money.... *gasp* isn't that what they want to do? They can have their $ and suddenly stark neighbourhoods look better? People are happier?

There is always a solution that is practical. The almighty greed is blinded by what they think should be.