Is owning a home a right?

Is it your right to own a home. I have heard where people say it isn't. I guess they want everyone to live in camps or something. Thoughts?

Even if one is on the lower end of the payscale. It should never be out of reach.

I don't understand the obsession with home ownership in this country.

And the fact is, the vast majority of people cannot afford homes - that is why the vast majority of people with houses or condos have mortgages.



I don't see housing as a "right" per se, but I certainly do see it as incumbent on the government to make sure that decent affordable housing is available to all who need it.

But I think the whole notion that everyone needs to own a home is silly. I've always rented and am sure as hell glad that I didn't buy into the recent bubble.

You're just making someone else rich. If you don't want to buy you shouldn't have to though. That's your right.

Now I agree that EVERYONE NEEDS TO OWN A HOME is silly: some people are not ready! However, everyone should be able to buy an affordable home if they want to!

They are in a major bind that could have been avoided had they rented THE EXACT SAME HOUSE for a third of what their mortgage payment is.

That is the reality in the SF Bay Area and many other bubble markets.

It was the "homebuyers" (homedebtors) who made others rich 2000-2006, not the renters.

and a strong sign that the government should have stemmed predatory lending years ago. This is all besides the point:

Sorry if I'm coming across as a dick but what part about the right to be able to AFFORD to buy a house am I not conveying? These houses are not and were not AFFORDABLE in 2005/2006 and are still not affordable now. The prices were and are too high to be affordable for most folks.

Now if someone wants to rent that's just great. If that's what they want, then great for them. Now if someone working the same job wanted to buy then they should be able to buy without fear of being priced out of the market. I feel that everyone SHOULD have that right!

Please!

House rentals in my area are three TIMES the price I would be paying on a mortgage! And that doesn't even factor in the costs of heat and electricity. Methinks you have your figures reversed.

I haven't purchased BECAUSE I knew the prices were hugely over-inflated. And we're already seeing the subdivisions with their McMansions bringing down the prices - just to get people to come and look at the homes! One guy has a brand new HUGE honking SUV in front of his model home - offering to throw in the SUV *if* you buy the house. And others are offering FREE inground pools if you buy.

I figure in another year or two I'll have my choice of something in a far more reasonable price range. Sucks for the contractors, but they got greedy. And patient folks will reap the benefits of their loss. :shrug:

Please visit lovely bubble America.

Finding comparable houses where rent is half what the mortgage payment is typical throughout the bay area.

Property values in the inland exurbs have now collapsed to the point where mortgages are approaching what rent would be, but even in disastrous markets like Stockton and Sacramento, renting a 2 or 3 BR house is still usually cheaper than house payments, especially in communities with HOAs.


A typical rent on a 1500 sq ft 2 BR house in the Bay Area would be about $2000/mo. A typical mortgage payment on a comparable house would be $3500-4000. Oh and don't forget property taxes, insurance and association fees.

It would take a HELL of a lot of interest tax deductions to make a house a sensible choice, and interest is still fairly low right now.


I'm not against buying a house (although I'm not crazy about doing it if you need a 30-year ARM), but in many areas of the country it is not the way to go, especially not right now.

rent on a two bedroom apartment in our neighborhood.

I didn't mind it until I had kids. It's disconcerting when you are renting a home in which you are unsure if and when the landlord is going to sell.

That being said, we are taking our time, and renting is where we are staying for the time being. I am very glad we didn't buy into the recent bubble. In the next year or two, however, we will eventually buy a home, where we'd like to stay for at least 7-10 years.

I've been lucky I never rented in the huge corporate complexes. My first place was a studio in San Diego, later I had a great 1 BR cottage there $450/mo in the early 90s.

Then we had a 2 BR townhouse with a teensy bit of bay view in San Diego - $650 - that was pretty nice.

Now we have another 2 BR townhouse - $700/mo. I don't feel it's money down the drain. There's a nice little yard, and the landlord takes care of all repairs.

I might buy someday, but renting doesn't bug me in the least. A mortgage looks like a great way to enslave yourself to a house to me. Once you figure in the cost of property insurance, HOA fees and maintenance, it really is a pretty penny.

Whereabouts? I've thought about moving out there to be closer to my younger daughter, but when I looked, the prices were totally outrageous.

Double or triple that now.

to rent a san diego condo is VERY VERY low. jeez, i pay almost that much for the mortgage on my small half-plex in sacramento, and the rent for my place would be about $1000 a month. you must have a very nice landlord who doesn't raise rents!

NT

:hi:

And I'm taking it to heart.

There are far too many homes suddenly on the market, for any sane renter to hand over a couple of months rent, and then have the landlord give you as little as 30 days to vacate if they sell.

Wonder how any landlord will react if they have to sign a form giving ME permission to check them out? :evilgrin:

from my perspective, anyway.

I grew up in rentals, and lived in them the first 10 years of my adult life.

In a rental, someone else decides what color I can paint, what I can plant, what animals I can keep, etc..

I can do what I want in my own home.

In a rental, I build no equity.

Rents go up. Mortgages don't, if you have a fixed rate. I do. I have a friend who rents. She leased the bunkhouse at a local ranch 6 years ago. The lease came with an acre of rocky, unimproved ground, rights to put 7 horses out on pasture from spring to fall, and hay storage in the pole barn. Her landlord, when it came time to renew the annual lease, started cutting things out. First it was the hay storage. Then it was the pasture for the horses. Finally, he decided that he was going to use the acre of ground that she had cleared and fenced for her horses. He also came in and hauled off the outbuilding attached to the bunkhouse that she used as a shop. What was really going on? Rents had increased. If she moved, he could get double the price. So he did his best to make sure she would. She did, and is paying twice what she used to. She took in 2 room mates to help make rent.

Nobody can force me out of my home, or take away whatever came with it.

In a rental, there will never come a time when I'm not paying rent. I can pay off a mortgage, though, and it's a good idea to do so before one reaches retirement age.

If I'm renting, I'm not getting deductions for interest on the mortgage, or for property taxes.

Having a right to do something does not automatically come with a guarantee that everyone can afford to do it.

if they so choose. If that's too commie for you, then I am sorry.

:grouphug:

How long should one have to work and spend and save wisely to be able to own?

or, preferring the exercise of any other industry, may exact for it such compensation as not only to afford a comfortable subsistence, but wherewith to provide for a cessation from labor in old age. Every one, by his property, or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order. And such men may safely and advantageously reserve to themselves a wholsome controul over their public affairs, and a degree of freedom, which in the hands of the Canaille of the cities of Europe, would be instantly perverted to the demolition and destruction of everything public and private. The history of the last 25 years of France, and of the last 40 years in American, nay of it's last 100 years, proves the truth of both parts of this observation."

Thomas Jefferson letter to John Adams, October 18, 1813, The Adams-Jefferson Letters, edited by Lester J. Cappon (1959) p. 391.

America was conceived as a country in which anyone could either own enough land or work at at trade that would provide enough to make a living and even retire in peace. As Jefferson explained, the concept was that if everyone owned property, everyone would be interested in upholding law and order. I agree with Jefferson. A few extremely wealthy people own more than their "share" of our country. They have corrupted capitalism. The dream of our Founding Fathers was for a capitalism in which everyone participated in a meaningful way. I posted a portion of John Adams' response in which he condemns the banks that Washington and Hamilton and their friends introduced into our system.

So, yes, every American has the right to own a house if he or she so chooses.

Down with Ayn Rand and her drivel. Her aristocratic dream is unAmerican.

it may as well be you.

That said, now is not a particularly good time to buy. ;)

and no one should be barred from owning a house.

It's not a right in the sense that the government should ensure that everyone gets a house.

Everyone should have a right to home, but not necessarily a house.

It would be nice if all could but it takes money. Not all can afford it.

It was taken away from the American people by the Bush regime.

.

on what social authority do they make their claim?

Private ownership of property is a cornerstone of our society.

i always considered my rights essentially to consist of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the right to free speech and privacy, and non-discrimination.

i've never owned a home, and i'm 52 years old. i've lived in rentals for virtually my entire adult life.

i guess i would say that home ownership is a right in the sense that i can own a home if i can ever afford to pay for it. but i come from southern CA a single mother most of my life. it's only been since i moved to NC and got a decent job that i have started to see home ownership as a possibility for me.

so, i dunno! do you think home ownership is a right?

That's not the same a "entitlement".

On the other hand, I believe everyone is entitled to decent affordable housing of some kind.

No, home ownership isn't and should not be a "right".

However, the ability to afford a safe place to live should be.

as long as we can cough up this week's or this month's rent.

If we're getting the dirty end of the stick and working essential jobs that don't pay us enough to live on, we're stuck with homeless shelters or lean tos in the woods. Around here, marginal workers live in junked trailers out in the desert and in camper shells on cinderblocks in camp grounds.

We all represent money getting away from the grasping hands of the wealthy no matter how poorly paid we are. So yes, they do want us all to live in hobo camps and work for the sheer pleasure of working. We can pick dinner up from dumpsters on our way home.

* "The right to a useful and remunerative job"

* "The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation"

* "The right of every family to a decent home"

* "The right to adequate medical care and opportunity to enjoy and achieve good health"

* "The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment"

* "The right to a good education"

"The Second Bill of Rights - FDR's Unfinished REvolution and WHY we Need it More than Ever"

Folks NEED to read this book. It's awesome!

Land, house, car, computer, etc, etc. It is restricted in certain instances, guns for one, but more to your post, land it is restricted if ownership conflicts with the general well being of the people, or however they word it.

You can rent. Plenty of people do.

If you believe otherwise, you are an authoritarian.

:hi:

If this right or entitlement ever existed, it doesn't exist now. Thanks in part to the SCOTUS ruling on Eminent Domain (Kelo et al v. City of New London) that gives the gov't broad power to seize your home for any reason.

Just give David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and John Paul Stevens your thanks. :sarcasm:

Detail of Kelo et al v. City of New London at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

one problem with this country is that too many people confuse rights with privileges.

Of course, in an agrarian society (as ours will necessarily become again, or at least moreso), the right to life meant the right to the use of enough land to support one's family. But that doesn't need to be "owned" either, as all traditional societies that hold land in common can attest.

Everybody should have a place to live, but I've never heard that one of our inalienable rights was to OWN anything.

Actually, Locke did state that property was one of the inalienable rights. That's because of the Enclosure Acts that deprived ordinary people of their access to land on which to raise food and therefore deprived them of their right to life.

but if we don't want to return to the feudal system, it should be an attainable goal for anybody who works full-time.

Especially in a city/county/state/country in which you live and pay taxes.

Maybe add "vote" to that too.

Housing is a right.

All would have equal access to housing - this is so obvious that it is remarkable that I have to say it - were not people being prevented from having housing by those who are using people's homes to mass fortunes.

Too bad we can't get liberals to be as concerned about homeless people as they are about homeless pets. If we could, homelessness would end within two years.

No one says that homeless pets are "mentally ill" or that they made the "wrong choices." Why? The "personal responsibility" idiocy is right wing propaganda, yet many, perhaps most, liberal activists fully embrace it.

you come up with the cash for a down payment.

There are two interpretations of your question:

1) is homeownership a right like free speech is a right or medical care without regard to ability to pay should be?
2) do citizens have a right to buy, own and sell private property?

The latter is clearly and obviously yes.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

they are free and don't require anyone else to sacrifice their life, liberty, or property in order for me to have them.

Protection of those rights has costs, but the rights themselves are a gift from above and were reserved for us by the Founding Fathers when they set up our government.

If you mean I should have the right to work save and, should I be able to agree with a property owner, purchase a home then yes.. If you mean should society at large make sure I own a home should I want one then *no*...

Rights *can not* be given to you they are yours because you exist and thusly are only to be protected *not* provided..

for us all, so it should be a goal.

I don't think anyone should be without a home. But while ownership is the best solution, generally speaking, there is no inherent "right" to that.