9

COMMENTS

PRINT

TEXT SIZE:

A A A
President Obama could make buying a home more difficultUnbeknown to most consumers, there is a seismic shift coming in the American real estate industry. The Obama Administration is contemplating fundamental changes to the national housing policy.

As yet, this is something for various think tanks, government officials, lobbyists, and academics to argue over, but it will come to affect virtually every single American citizen in one way or another. I wrote about this on my blog for the industry insider folks, but wanted to see what you, the consumer, knows or thinks about the issue.

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration will walk away from the longstanding policy of encouraging homeownership towards encouraging affordable rentals combined with "sustainable homeownership" by winding down "some government backing for home loans, but increase the focus on affordable rentals."

The Treasury Department has asked for and received public comments (which, in our contemporary politics, means lobbyist comments) on seven broad questions about housing policy.
Changes of this magnitude will impact everyone. Current homeowners may find that they can no longer deduct mortgage interest; future homebuyers might find mortgages harder to get; home sellers will naturally see a drop in price as demand dries up; renters might find it easier to rent with government subsidies, but landlords may face new regulations. Or none of that may happen. No one knows as yet what that policy will ultimately look like, but it does appear that we may be headed for a new era in American history of homeownership.

The key phrases, I think, are "sustainable homeownership" and "balanced policy".

"Sustainable homeownership" suggests that the administration believes that the past policies of encouraging homeownership through channels like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have resulted in people who couldn't afford to own homes being saddled with enormous debt they couldn't repay. The massive foreclosure crisis, which is still ongoing, wiped out the net worth of millions of families. No matter what the final form, if this reform comes to pass, there is little doubt that the effect of such a policy would be fewer buyers, fewer homeowners, and lower home prices across the board. That is the whole point of a "sustainable" homeownership policy after all: Only allow those who can comfortably afford a home to buy one.

The handmaiden to the "sustainable homeownership" policy, of course, is the so-called "balanced housing policy." Plainly put, it means that instead of encouraging lower-income families to buy homes, the United States would encourage them to rent for longer, until they get to the financial position to be able to buy a house "sustainably". Such a policy could mean anything from rent subsidies to low-income families all the way to a national rent control regime, and just about everything in between.

But the effect will be to lower the price of rentals and provide a level of permanence to renting such that it can be a reasonable substitute for buying a home for the low-income family. For example, I have trouble imagining a rental policy that doesn't include some level of regulation over when and by how much a landlord can raise rents, and when and under what circumstances the landlord can evict a tenant. The whole point of a policy that encourages rentals, after all, is to create affordable rental housing that the renter can depend on.

Policy wonks and government officials and lobbyists will spend months debating various aspects and details of the policy. But for the average consumer-citizen, the questions might be simpler, if broader in scope.

Is homeownership still the American Dream? Or in the aftermath of the Great Recession caused in large part by the credit crisis triggered by the housing market, is it more of an American Would-Be-Nice, if not an outright American Nightmare? What is your attitude towards owning a home vs. renting longterm?

Should the government even have a housing policy at all that is separate and apart from anti-poverty policy? Put another way, does the middle class and the wealthy need government help at all? (For what it's worth, the mortgage interest deduction tends to benefit the well-to-do who itemize their deductions.) Or should "housing policy" be just another element of our national social welfare programs, such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance?

Between landlords and tenants, whose interests are more important for the government to protect?

Why should taxpayers, by way of the government, be involved in housing finance? What societal benefits accrue to all of us by financing housing -- whether rentals or homeownership?

I suspect you have your own questions as well as thoughts and answers on such a large issue as national housing policy. I'd be interested to see them.

More on AOL Real Estate:
Find out how to calculate mortgage payments.
Find homes for sale in your area.
Find foreclosures in your area.
Get property tax help from our experts.


************************************************

Want to learn more about home buying and home finance? If so, you won't want to miss
our online discussion with industry experts,
"What Works Now: Smart Moves When Buying a Home,"
created by AOL Real Estate in participation with Bank of America Home Loans.
Watch it now on AOL Real Estate.
Add Your Comment

Tags: federal housing policy, government, housing market, Obama Administration, renting vs. owning

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

1. Bobeggs on Thursday, Jul 29th at 01:17:PM said...

Just another step to Socialism. Look at Europe. Nice rubber-stamp housing blocks to house the peasants. No incentive to move up. Just let big daddy government take care of you and make your decisions for you. Oh, and send us your money. What's next?

2. Leon on Thursday, Jul 29th at 08:11:PM said...

DOES THAT SURPRISE ANYONE?

3. nick on Friday, Jul 30th at 09:35:AM said...

Obama's friends here in Chi town, like RESKO want him to make it harder so they can have the folks tied down in their slum apartments, this has always been the trick. You have people like MAXINE WATERS and BARNEY FRANKS who run cover for FRANKLIN RAINES at FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC, he made millions and they said things were rosey. Then you got SEN CONRAD and SEN DODD getting those VIP sweetheart loans from COUNTRYWIDE, the folks are tired of the swamp called WASHINGTON D.C.

4. Sara Bonert on Friday, Jul 30th at 10:29:AM said...

What is the point of having a free market system if the government prevents it from operating as such. I agree with Bobeggs that it is another, unnecessary, step towards socialism.

I think there should be some short term programs for people who need help getting back on track. But over the long haul, a free market should set the price people are willing and able to pay for rent, or the price of a home.

I don't think everyone should be a homeowner, and to push them into thinking they can or should be isn't right. Clinton started us down this path and look where it got us.

In a nutshell, I say let the markets decide prices and the way people live, not the government.

5. Sean OConnell on Friday, Jul 30th at 06:54:PM said...

Wow! Is it not time to take our States back and put the fed back where they belong? Do they not realize how intricate and individualized the various real estate markets are across the country?

Why should we stand by and let the same fed that created the loan market causing the real estate crash have any say at all? They really need to let the power of the free market do it's thing.

The action that the fed is discussing has already taken place in the real world and needs to continue it's corrective path without more distructive fed interference.

6. eyrehed on Friday, Jul 30th at 11:42:AM said...

"(For what it's worth, the mortgage interest deduction tends to benefit the well-to-do who itemize their deductions.) Not true. When I bought my first home 7 years ago I earned 45K a year as an RN; I had saved for 14 years to buy. Even now, I don't have enough to itemize, but the mortgage interest deduction is a huge help to me. And another thing- who are all these landlords going to be?? As a kid my parents worked hard, had 2 rental properties. EVERY time someone moved out, they place had been trashed. My Dad spent hours retiling floors, redoing kithchens, walls, celings, bathrooms, you name it. My parents gave up it up after 4 years. So who is going to be these landlords? Or is it more properly going to be "slumlords"?

7. sam on Friday, Jul 30th at 05:22:PM said...

SILLY, the government will be the new slum landlords. Also, with all these reverse mortgages they will have alot of houses, too.

8. eyrehed on Friday, Jul 30th at 11:48:AM said...

Yes, I notice Obama and his cronies all own large mansions. But that's OK, cause they're rich and we're peasants. We'll just live in the slum rentals overseen by their slumlords. This is not an attempt on Obama's part to "fix" anything. It's part of his further socialization of America.

9. Carol on Monday, Aug 2nd at 07:28:PM said...

What does he care. He owns his home.

9 Comments / 1 Pages

 

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog post. First-time comment? Enter your name and e-mail address, and you'll receive an email confirming your comment and issuing you a password. Your name will be displayed with your comment, but your email address will not. To create additional comments, use that same password. Comments may contain up to three live links; line breaks and paragraphs will automatically be converted to HTML.

Poll

Rob Hahn asked, now you get to answer: What is your attitude towards owning a home vs. renting longterm?
Owning a home is still a great way to invest for the long term - it's still at the center of the American Dream9126 (66.2%)
Ownership can be overrated. It's better to rent long term than extend yourself financially just for the sake of owning a home.4659 (33.8%)

Most Popular Stories

Follow Us

Local Homes for Sale