Mark Snyder writes: > From what I've seen, the biggest obstacle facing children in poor families in Minneapolis are unstable living situations that cause them to move frequently and also change schools frequently, often leading to their falling behind. If direct housing assistance to families, either as Jim Graham has suggested by subsidizing home ownership or as Dennis Plante has suggested by de-concentrating poverty, helps solve the problem of school-aged children moving around too much, that might be worth the cost to taxpayers right there.
However, I don't know that neighborhood surroundings matter as much as stability of the individual child's home. Who is the bigger influence in a child's life - their parents or their parents' neighbors? With the exception of extreme poverty where meals are missed and such, are kids really that aware that they're poor? I grew up in a single-parent and poor family, but I have to say that I didn't really notice much difference between me and the other kids until maybe around junior high school when we actually started to pay attention to things like clothes and what brands kids wore. Or maybe it was just me. Does anyone know whether kids in poor neighborhoods who do live in relatively stable situations where they're not moving constantly and have responsible parents do better at avoiding things like drugs, gangs or other criminal activity? I would guess that they do. The other problem I have is that whether you go with the Graham idea or the Plante idea, both are awfully tough sells from a political standpoint."< Jim Graham did not suggest, "giving people houses". What I suggested is that it is ridiculous to subsidize cheap apartments for MORE than it would cost to give them a good house. My suggestion is to create a guaranteed loan program (whose actual costs are almost nothing) to make mortgages more affordable and to create a down payment assistance program coupled with "supportive" homeownership assistance. This creates homeownership units at a small percentage of the amount of subsidy to keep them in poverty apartments. It is an INVESTMENT because the new "homeowner" pays it back in the form of his or her taxes. Mark is correct; the most important thing in a child's life is a stable "home" environment. The best means to creating that stability is homeownership! There is more to that stability than just living in one place. Families with homes also have more stable home lives as a rule, with stability for the adult parents also. This of course impacts the security for the children and a belief in the future. That hopefulness creates reasons to go to school and have dreams of better things in the future. Being around positive role models and associating with "friends" that offer opportunities also contributes to a child's future and even more "hopefulness". Being surrounded by a community where all children are expected to succeed also helps a child's success. Much of the damage that poverty inflicts on children is a hopelessness that creates both powerlessness and social isolation. Poverty (aided by some good liberal folks) teaches children that because of that poverty they will have no chance for a future. When the child has learned this well enough they don't bother to even try. This creates more than just economic poverty; it creates a poverty of the soul. Children from impoverished families and neighborhoods are expected to fail. Should we be surprised when after learning this at school they then follow this blueprint for failure? We must re-establish the hope that was once the American dream for all of our children. We must start expecting ALL our children to succeed! Mark speaks of how this "affordable homeownership" would NOT be acceptable to Republicans. I am not sure he is correct. Isn't it the Republican mantra that people should not be given things but given opportunities? Don't Republicans often refer to the America of their parents who came home from the WWII and bought a house with the GI Bill? A guaranteed loan program or small State "investment" in subsidizing homeownership down payments does exactly that. It removes families from "social service" costs to the taxpayer, and makes them taxpayers themselves. Taxpayers who return that small "investment" with interest. Sounds like fiscal conservativeness to me. It is even the program that is currently being pushed by the Secretary Martinez directed HUD. Even the Republicans realize that a small investment in affordable homeownership is the answer to bringing poor families out of poverty. I am sometimes ashamed that my fellow Democrats have not been caring enough to realize this. Sure the Republicans might not be totally serious, but at least they are talking about it. The party that is "supposed" to care for people needs to start acting like it. The party of Franklin Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey was about giving people opportunities to get OUT of poverty, NOT about how to better exist in it. Subsidized rents eventually cost taxpayers many times what a house does. Homeownership is the one proven method of taking families out of poverty. It is the proven method that Minnesota's new immigrants used a hundred years ago, and it is the method that our new immigrants are using today. On my own block several new immigrant Latino families have gone from poverty to working middle class in just a few years using this very model. Families challenged by not only poverty but also language problems. The difference is that they came for the American dream and expected to be able to able to buy a home; so they did. It will take some effort to re-educate our own impoverished that they to should also expect to be part of that American dream. The new immigrants also expect their children to succeed in life and are teaching those children to also expect that success. Children have a way of becoming what we "EXPECT" them to be. Homeownership for their families will probably insure that those children's expectations will come true. Jim Mork says, "We spent some of our lives in rental property, though my father never considered it more than a transitory thing." Though he may not realize the import of it, clearly Mr. Mork's father had certain "expectations" and passed those expectations and advantages on to at least one child. Children from families with expectations in the other direction may need a little more "assistance". Remember, "affordable homeownership" is not a gift. It is a small investment in our City, in OUR communities, and in OUR children and families. Jim Graham, Ventura Village >" There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies, revolution into minds, and families into homes" TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
