3 Responses to “Worst idea … EVER!” »»

1. Hank
   Comment by Hank | 05/08/07 at 12:49 pm

   They’re worried about blight, like

   every major city is right now, you know, guy in one townhouse paid $550K in ‘05, fast forward

   summer of ‘08, the townhouse next to that one is a crack house, next one down is a squatters

   house.
   On a seperate note, you must be happy your girlfriend Kimberly Blanton is back to

   writing puff pieces. Doing shows with Chronicle pointing out “trendy condos” in Brockton and

   Lowell, boy, it’s gonna’ be a long, slow summer.

2. David
   Comment by David | 05/09/07 at 3:57 pm

   If you’re in

   the business of real estate, it’s a terrible idea because it takes potential business off the

   table. If you’re looking to increase the supply of affordable housing in one of the most expensive

   housing markets in the country for essential middle-class workers who don’t make $$$

   (firefighters, policemen, nurses, etc.), it’s a good idea. Why shouldn’t the city take advantage

   of the market to buy real estate inexpensively for its own purposes just like everyone else? As a

   corollary, Columbia University is one of the largest landowners in Manhattan and they use their

   residental holdings to provide affordable housing for their faculty and grad students (who also

   don’t make $$$). Like the city, Columbia has an incentive to providing affordable housing that

   enhances the viability of the institution. As for the restrictions on resale value, some kind of

   safeguard has to be put into place so that beneficiaries of affordable housing can’t exploit the

   system and reap a huge personal profit from selling a publicly-subsidized property at market value.

   Sam Yoon’s idea, while not perfect, has a lot of merit and has the potential to benefit Boston for

   a long time.

3. John A Keith
   Comment by John A Keith | 05/09/07 at 4:11 pm

   It is a terrible idea for the city

   to get involved in this, beyond helping the owners find alternate financing to avoid losing their

   homes to foreclosure.

   I can imagine the type of headline in the Herald a year from now,

   should this idea come to pass:

   “City told them they would save their home, now they’ve been

   kicked out and are homeless!”
   “City sits on inventory of hundreds of empty homes, now falling

   apart due to neglect - neighborhood demands action!”

   It doesn’t make any sense to combat

   high housing costs by buying these properties from the owners, and letting them rent them back

   and/or sell them to other buyers, and then put limits on the resale values.

   My interest in

   this is not monetary - it really doesn’t make much sense to say I wouldn’t want this to happen

   because it would take business away from me.

   1) I don’t work with buyers in those

   markets
   2) The number of foreclosures is small compared to the number of properties for sale

   within the city and wouldn’t have any effect on anyone’s business
   3) The number of owners who

   would take the city up on their offer is minuscule and wouldn’t have any effect on anyone’s

   business

   The city should mind its own business.

   Throwing money at it will not solve

   the problem.

   Let’s move on to the next idea, please.

Leave a Reply »»