I was licensed building contractor for over 30 years,looks like I could have been a bazillionair in Detroit.
But it is not fair using that as an example without providing the specs.
In the 1950s through the 70s city leaders across the country were trying to figure out how to get people to move back to the urban core.
Some genius came up with a term called urban renewal,code speak for tear it all down and they will come and build new.
Some smaller cities destroyed 60% of their historic housing stock going back into the early 1800s,even today they are still trying to figure out what to do with the empty spaces.
If the city takes a house and even if they spend $50,000 fixing it and then turns around and puts a first home buyer into it for $30,000,the taxpayer has not lost.
The federal monies put out for these programs are designed to lose money short term,but benefit the city long term.
The very reason the funds are available is because the feds recognize that the houses are not worth putting money into in the first place and the only way to make them feasible long term is at a loss.
You cannot view it like you are actually buying the house and fixing it to flip,it is two totally different objectives.
It has not cost the city residents,outside of a few federal tax dollars a dime.
In return you get to add another house on the tax roll,another long term resident that spends money locally and so on,the list is long on how neighborhood stabilization benefits the city long term.
As long as the numbers are within reason,they are irrelevant long term.
You know what the difference is now?
You have city leadership that is actually taking advantage of the fed programs out there,it is a stark contrast to the last 15 years when the available grants were not applied for,applied for late or the funds received were never even used and were clawed back by the feds.
Bookmarks