Notorious R.O.B.

Courtesy of Zillow’s blog, we hear about the economically depressed city of Youngstown, OH razing thinly populated neighborhoods in order to save on public services costs to the area. There are lots of reasons to do this — abandoned homes can become a base for crime, drugs, and other naughty activities that civilized society frowns upon. And I’m not opposed to the “Honey, I Shrank the City” movement.

On the other hand… I’m just wondering…

Why not try homesteading?

And I don’t mean the modern definition of the term that refers to bunch of neo-hippies practicing some “back to earth” sustainable living type stuff. I mean the original, 1862 version of the word homesteading.

The 1862 Homestead Act required that the claimant “improve” the land he was claiming, and stay there for five years. At the end of that period, the land was his free and clear.

A homesteader had only to be the head of a household and at least 21 years of age to claim a 160 acre parcel of land. Settlers from all walks of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers without land of their own from the East, single women and former slaves came to meet the challenge of “proving up” and keeping this “free land”. Each homesteader had to live on the land, build a home, make improvements and farm for 5 years before they were eligible to “prove up”. A total filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers.

This was an amazing chapter in the history of the United States. Former slaves, freed by the Civil War, could become landowners. New immigrants, women, the poor — all had a real shot at making a life for themselves and achieving the dream of landownership.

Why not again today?

Suppose Youngstown were to simply condemn the houses, then hand out title to any U.S. citizen who claimed a property, with some conditions, similar to the one in the 1862 law.

• You must stay in the residence for at least five years.
• During your stay, you must maintain the house in reasonable condition and not engage in any illegal activities in the house.
• It must be your primary residence for those five years.
• You must pay all property taxes and government fees associated with homeownership, such as for trash removal, water and sewage, etc.

At the end of five years, title to the house belongs to you free and clear.

If there is a homelessness problem in this country, rather than continuing to invest in public housing, why not encourage (in the most radical way possible) private homeownership for the poor?  Imagine a poor family suddenly having title to their own house after five years.  What can they do with that?  If the economy turns around because of an influx of people, businesses start up again, jobs start to get created, and the value of the property becomes something substantial… those people might have a real nest egg for retirement, or use the equity in the house to start a business or go to college or whatever else they want.

And Youngstown wouldn’t just have a reduced cost for services, but a higher tax base as well.

Rather than embracing defeat and shrinkage, a city faced with the blight of mass foreclosures can actually revitalize their entire economic base simply by giving away abandoned houses.  The “owners” are not likely to be complaining, seeing as how the alternative is to have the property razed and turned into a public park or some such.  After Kelo, I can’t see how this sort of program would not pass muster, especially as it pertains to abandoned homes in blighted areas.

What am I missing here?

-rsh

A cautionary tale from the real estate world:

The Fifth Amendment ends saying, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” In the end, this is private, not public property. The same person that wants to dictate what can and cannot happen on private property, does not want anyone to tell them what they can and cannot do to their own house. I understand development more than the average person. Because an ex-employee wanted to get back at me, he asked for one of my projects to be considered a landmark for no other reason than it was old enough to fit the criteria. So I have been through the Landmark process and have spent a large amount of money all to have the Landmark board unanimously vote NO.

Going through this process made me question my political rights. Political freedom is being free from tyranny and free to own what you want to own as long as it does not harm anyone else, or abuse their rights. This is the point where opposition becomes confused. Opposition may use the argument that development of the Ballard Dennys would harm or abuse their rights, but on what grounds? I am sure John McCullough (attorney hired by Benaroya) will appeal this decision on the simple ground that this is private property and will not harm or abuse other’s rights.

We are all giving these personal freedoms and Ken Alhadeff, the owner of Majestic Bay Theatres said it perfectly. “If you choose to designate, you must be part of the solution. And then what? What’s the next step? Who will restore it? What will it be?”

Sadly, Jon, the answer is that Ken Alhadeff is wrong.  You don’t have to be part of the solution; you can just make the private landowner pay.  You don’t have to show harm or abuse or any such thing — you just have to have the power to compel private property owners to buckle under to the will of the majority.

At a time when large numbers of Americans accept rent control laws, believing that all those laws do is “stick it to the rich”, why anyone would continue to believe that appeals to conscience would preserve personal freedoms such as private property rights is beyond me.  Freedom isn’t free.  It must be defended, and vigorously, not just from foreign enemies, but from the far more dangerous domestic enemies.

In the aftermath of Kelo, the number of Americans who are clueless about where various local candidates stand on the issue of private property rights is astonishing.

People deserve the leaders that they get.  I would suggest Jon consider running for office, or supporting someone for office who cares about private property rights and personal freedom.

-rsh