The top 20 meanest cities were chosen based on the number of anti-homeless laws in the city, the enforcement of those laws and severities of penalties, the general political climate toward homeless people in the city, local advocate support for the meanest designation, the city’s history of criminalization measures, and criminalization legislation.
read more | digg story
The same media that sold us the “certainty” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has redefined homelessness so that low-income individuals, not powerful Presidents, Senators and Congresspersons, are to blame. It’s no wonder the public feels hopeless about solving homelessness, and blames local mayors rather than the federal government.
After the Nixon Administration stopped the construction of new public housing in the United States, the country was left with fewer low-cost units for families than would be required to meet future demand.
Within a decade, homeless families became visible on the nation’s streets. No subsequent President has addressed the shortage of low-cost housing for families by increasing the nation’s public housing supply, and the number of such units has steadily declined.
As young professionals returned to major cities in the late 1970’s, upward pressure on rents left urban areas increasingly unaffordable for low-income people.
The Reagan Administration responded to this emerging affordability crisis by sharply cutting federal housing funding in 1981. This denied low-income residents the subsidies necessary for them to stay housed.
Widespread homelessness resulted, and it was not until 1999--after Bill Clinton had eliminated any new Section 8 vouchers--- that the federal government began meaningfully increasing the numbers served by federal housing subsidies.
Bush then stopped this progress in its tracks.
read more | digg story
It's hard to avoid negative news about the mortgage lending business. Defaults are rising, subprime lenders are closing shop, and fortunes could be lost as mortgage-backed securities go up in smoke. Sounds ominous, but how will these trends impact someone who's trying to buy or sell a home?
The first thing to understand is that lenders are moving back to basics. No- and very low-down-payment mortgages are available only to buyers with high credit scores. This means no more 100 percent and 95 percent mortgages for subprime borrowers.
Lenders are also backing away from low-documentation and stated-income mortgages. Many lenders now require buyers to have a cash down payment, good credit and the ability to verify income.
For years, home buyers stretched the price they could pay by using adjustable-rate and interest-only mortgages. Not long ago, lenders qualified buyers for these loan products based on the lower initial rates and on interest-only payments. Now, borrowers must qualify based on the fully indexed rate and amortized payment. In other words, qualifying for a home mortgage is more difficult.
Appraisals are also being scrutinized more carefully. If home prices have dropped in your neighborhood, the lender's underwriter might knock the appraised value down 5 percent and require you to increase your down payment accordingly. Some lenders now require two appraisals. Before the credit crisis, this was required only for loan amounts above $1 million. If your contract includes a contingency for the property to appraise for the purchase price, make sure that you have underwriting approval before you remove the contingency.
After signing the ‘American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003’ Bush added, “We want people to be fully aware of what it means to buy a home and what it takes”. The contradiction, if otherwise unclear, was that the President was signing a law that gave free money to those who could not afford to buy a home, and then he planned to educate.about the hard work, savings, and planning that is required to buy a home.
With Wall Street packaging and selling mortgage reset time bombs, rating agencies dolling out A's first and asking questions never, and many homeowners essentially signing future default notices before their new home purchases were finalized.
Bush's efforts at expanding homeownership since 2003 have gone unnoticed as the subprime debacle widens. Unfortunately, so have the costs of funding Bush's homeownership initiatives.
What should not remain unnoticed is the irony of it all: near the height of the housing boom Bush wanted to do everything he could to boost already record high homeownership rates, but now, as the boom turns to bust, Bush is eying a plethora of emergency policy moves to simply try and keep ownership rates stable.
You can not help but wonder whether or not many Americans would have been better off if Bush simply left the mortgage market alone.
read more | digg story
